JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The plaintiff, instituted a suit, seeking therethrough hence a rendition, of, a declaratory decree, (i) for nullifying, the binding, and, conclusive verdict (s), recorded upon Civil Suit No. 256 of 1984, hence on 27.8.1987, verdict whereof, is, embodied in Ext. DW1/A, (ii) given, the, verdict, upon, the afore suit rather becoming made, without her apt predecessor-in-interest, or her sons, becoming impleaded therein, as, contesting litigants. Also, an injunction was claimed, rather for restraining the defendant, from, ensuring execution, of, the afore binding, and, conclusive decree (s), recorded, upon, the afore civil suit , besides, she strived, to, validate the entries, occurring in the revenue records, and, appertaining, to, the suit khasra Nos. wherein, she has become bestowed, with the rights, of, inheritance, vis-à-vis, the estate, of, her predecessor-in-interest, one Sant Ram. Since, the afore relief (s) became declined, to the plaintiff, by, the learned Trial Judge concerned, hence an appeal became carried therefrom, hence, before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the, latter, upon, Civil Appeal No. 01-B/XIII/07, made, a verdict, alike the one initially made, by the learned trial Judge, upon Civil Suit No. 256 of 1984. The plaintiff becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, hence through, the, instant Regular Second Appeal, as, cast thereagainst, before this Court, has strived, to, beget reversal, of, the concurrent decree (s), pronounced, upon her, by both the learned Courts below. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, this Court admitted, the, same, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law: (i) Whether both the learned Courts below is justified to dismiss the suit/appeal of the plaintiff/appellant on the strength of earlier suit No. 256/84, titled Dhannu versus Rakesh Ext.DW1/A and RSA No. 127/97, titled Ramesh Kumar and others Versus Dhani Ram Ext. DW2/A, wherein neither the husband of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff/appellant were arrayed as party respondent? (ii) Whether the right, title or interest over the suit land of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/3rd share can be taken away on the strength of earlier suit Ext.DW1/A, wherein, she was not made the party by the respondent/defendant? (iii) Whether the judgments and decrees are based on mis-reading, mis-appreciating and mis-construction of Ext. DW1/A, DW1/B, Ext. D-1 and Ext. D-2 and Ext. PX? (iv) Whether the judgment and decrees Ext. DW1/A and Ext. (iii) Whether the judgments and decrees are based on mis-reading, mis-appreciating and mis-construction of Ext. DW1/A, DW1/B, Ext. D-1 and Ext. D-2 and Ext. PX? (iv) Whether the judgment and decrees Ext. DW1/A and Ext. DW1/B is nullity, in-operative and nor enforceable qua the share of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit land? 3. The solitary contention reared, by, the aggrieved plaintiff, for annulling the verdicts, recorded, by both the learned Courts below, and, also for further annulling, the, dependences, as, made by both the learned Courts below, upon, the, conclusive and binding decree (s), recorded, upon, Civil Suit No. 256 of 1984, verdict whereof, is, embodied, in, Ext. DW1/A, becomes rested, upon, the dependences, hence thereon rather becoming infirm, (i) as neither her predecessor-in-interest, one Sant Ram, nor his sons, becoming impleaded, in, the afore civil suit, (ii) and nor the suit khasra Nos, in the earlier suit, bearing analoguity, vis-à-vis, the extant suit khasra Nos, (iii) and thereafter, he contends that, with, in the earlier lis, the apt predecessor-in-interest, hence remained un-impleaded, thereupon she had no opportunity, to, make a valid vicarious participation therein, for, hers’, hence efficaciously, through him or her sons, resisting the earlier suit, for, possession, as, instituted by the plaintiff therein, the defendant, in the extant suit, (iv) hence, the earlier verdict embodied in Ext. DW1/A, rather not carrying the fullest binding efficacy, rather also not estopping, the, plaintiff, to, make valid challenges, vis-à-vis, the pronounced capacity, of, the defendant, in the earlier suit/verdict, khasra Nos., as a “Gair Marusi”, given reiteratedly the afore verdicts not hence holding any binding, and, conclusive effects. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereafter, (v) the afore submissions, are frail, and became wholly weakened, by, the trite factum, inasmuch, as, (vi) a perusal of the array of parties, in the earlier lis, whereon Ext. DW1/A, became pronounced, rather revealing, vis-à-vis, the estate of one Sant Ram, the predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiff, becoming represented, by, his two sons, one Ramesh Kumar, and, one Rishi Kumar. Also, reading of Ext. DW1/A hence unveils, vis-à-vis, the earlier suit khasra Nos, bearing similarity, vis-à-vis, the extant suit khasra Nos. DW1/A, became pronounced, rather revealing, vis-à-vis, the estate of one Sant Ram, the predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiff, becoming represented, by, his two sons, one Ramesh Kumar, and, one Rishi Kumar. Also, reading of Ext. DW1/A hence unveils, vis-à-vis, the earlier suit khasra Nos, bearing similarity, vis-à-vis, the extant suit khasra Nos. (vii) whereupon, an inevitable inference, is, bolstered, qua (viii) the estate of the afore deceased Sant Ram, becoming represented, by his sons, and also hence, the legal heirs, of, deceased Sant Ram, rather evidently obviously efficaciously defending the interest (s), of, Sant Ram, in, the earlier suit, as, became, instituted by the defendant herein. Even though, the plaintiff remained un-impleaded therein, yet, her non-impleadment, in the earlier lis, is in-consequential, as her sons represented her therein, and also represented the, estate, of, her predecessor-in-interest, (vii) whereupon, she is concluded, to be aware, of, the earlier litigation, also appertaining to the extant suit khasra Nos, and, rather bearing analoguity, vis-à-vis, the extant suit khasra Nos., (viii) moreso, when she failed, to, make valid agitations, hence during the course of hearing, being made upon the earlier suit, vis-à-vis, apart from her two sons, one, Ramesh Kumar, and, one Rishi Kumar, who are impleaded therein, in, the array of defendants, hers also becoming entitled to represent, the, estate of one Sant Ram, hence, in the earlier litigation. The inevitable corollary thereof, is, qua the plaintiff willfully hence abandoning/waiving her right to contest, hence, as legal heir, of, the afore Sant Ram, the, acerbic res-controversia emerging, hence in the earlier lis, (ix) thereupon, she is barred to contest the legality, of, the findings, returned thereon, vis-à-vis, one Dhannu, becoming therethrough hence conclusively pronounced, to be holding, the, capacity, of, a “Gair Marusi”, vis-à-vis, the thereat suit khasra Nos, khasra Nos whereof, bear similarity, vis-à-vis, the extant suit khasra Nos, (x) also, is, incapacitated to resist, the, fullest efficacious execution, becoming made, vis-à-vis, the decree of possession, as became pronounced, in, Ext. DW1/A, (xi) conspicuously also when she has failed to adduce evidence, vis-à-vis, her sons, bearing inimicality, towards her interest in litigation, in the earlier lis, whereupon rather she would become competent to agitate, qua hers being invalidly condemned, un-heard, in the earlier lis, nor also when the attestation, of, mutation of inheritance, qua theestate of deceased Santa Ram, vis-à-vis, her remains un-demonstrated, to, become challenged by her, sons, (xii) hence also fillips an inference vis-à-vis, their existing amicable relations interse all of them, whereupon she is concluded, to, through her sons, hence, make, a, full efficacious, and, valid participation in the earlier lis, rendering her fully estopped, to, re-open, a, controversy earlier conclusively, and, finally decided. 4. Be that as it may, even though, the order attesting the apt mutation, vis-à-vis, her, and appertaining qua the share of her predecessor-in-interest, one Sant Ram, in the extant suit khasra Nos., became recorded on 20.3.2003, hence, subsequent, to, the binding and conclusive verdict, becoming recorded, through, Ext. DW1/A, upon the earlier lis, interse the defendant, and the sons of Sant Ram, yet when as aforestated, rather all the afores hence represented the interest, of, their mother, in, the earlier lis, (x) thereupon the afore order, of, mutation, recorded on 20.3.2003, would not, leverage, a, fresh cause of action, in the plaintiff, to hence scuttle, the, vigor, of, the earlier recorded binding and conclusive verdict, made, hence in the earlier lis, rather interse the defendant and, her sons, who without agitation, from, their mother, fully represented the interests, of, the plaintiff, in the earlier lis. The substantial questions of law, are, answered accordingly. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned Judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 01-B/XIII/07, on, 4.8.2007, affirming the judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baijnath, District Kangra, on 25.11.2006, are, maintained and affirmed. Also, the pending application (s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.