JUDGMENT : 1. As both these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No.97 of 2006, alongwith Counter Claim No.23/16/2006, as affirmed by the Court of learned District JudgeII, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2019, in Civil Appeal No.14J/ 2016, the same are being disposed of with the consent of the parties by a single judgment. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeals are as under :- The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents qua the suit land, stating in the plaint that earlier they were Gair Marusi tenants over the suit land and defendants were having no right, title or interest over the suit land and had no right to get the suit land partitioned and that plaintiffs had become owners of the suit land by virtue of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, a declaration was sought that order passed by A.C. 1st Grade, Jawali, dated 07.04.2005, partitioning the suit land and orders dated 07.11.2005 and 30.08.2005, passed by S.D.M. Jawali, upholding the orders of partition, be declared as illegal, null and void. Further, consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and dispossessing them from the structure and machinery on the basis of wrong orders was also prayed for. Alternatively, a relief of mandatory injunction and possession was also sought, on the ground that if during the pendency of the suit, defendants succeeded in dispossessing the plaintiffs, then their possession be restored. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi tenants and there was no infirmity with the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, which were sought to be declared as illegal and void. It was further the stand of said defendants that otherwise also the plaintiffs were having statutory remedy to challenge these orders which was not availed. It was further the case of said defendants that the suit land was lying vacant at the spot. 4. It was further the stand of said defendants that otherwise also the plaintiffs were having statutory remedy to challenge these orders which was not availed. It was further the case of said defendants that the suit land was lying vacant at the spot. 4. Defendant No.3 resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessor-in-interest were ever inducted as Gair Marusi tenants over the suit land. As per defendant No.3, he had constructed a shed over the part of the suit land and father of the plaintiffs in the year 1972 took said structure on yearly rent of Rs.60/with the understanding that the same shall be returned to defendant No.3, when requested. The rent was increased in the year 1995 and was settled at Rs.500/per year. Further, as per defendant No.3, after the death of Nakelu Ram, plaintiffs came in possession of said shed and started paying annual rent on same terms. In the year 2002, intention of the plaintiffs changed and they stopped paying the rent and thereafter, defendants served a notice upon them under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in terms whereof, the plaintiffs were requested to pay rent from March, 2002 onwards till March, 2005, but plaintiffs refused to admit the claim of the defendants. By way of said notice, plaintiffs were also called upon to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises, as the same were required by defendant No.3 for personal necessity, but this was also not done. Defendant No.3 also filed a Counter-Claim for ejectment and recovery of rent, on the grounds already narrated hereinabove. 5. Learned Trial Court, in terms of judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the Counter-Claim filed by defendant No.3. Para-53 of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court reads as under: “53. Keeping in view my findings on various issues, suit filed by plaintiffs seeking declaration of they being Gair Marusi tenants or that partition order is illegal, null & void, is hereby dismissed. Further, suit of plaintiffs for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction is also hereby dismissed. Keeping in view my findings on various issues, suit filed by plaintiffs seeking declaration of they being Gair Marusi tenants or that partition order is illegal, null & void, is hereby dismissed. Further, suit of plaintiffs for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction is also hereby dismissed. Further, counter claim filed by defendant No.3 is decreed and he is held entitled to recover possession of land and shed from plaintiffs comprising in khata No.454, khatauni No.995, khasra No.3199, area measuring 00300 Hms, situated in Mohal & Mauza Bharmar, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, HP, without demolition of structure raised over the suit land. Further, counter claimant/defendant No.3 is held entitled to recover arrears of rent amounting to Rs.180/in total alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of institution of counter claim till its recovery. In view of the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The case file complete in all respects be consigned to record room.” 6. Record demonstrates that against the dismissal of the suit and the decree of the Counter-Claim, plaintiffs preferred only one single appeal, i.e. Civil Appeal No.14J of 2016, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2019, by holding as under: “19. In Parso versus Dumnu Ram and others 2017(3) Shim. Law Cases 1270, while deciding the substantial question of law, “whether one single appeal filed by plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chamba, in Civil Suit No.38 of 2021 was maintainable in view of the fact that vide its judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005, learned trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff had decreed the counter claim filed by the defendant”, the Hon’ble High Court on relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court while answering this substantial question of law, has held that the single appeal is not maintainable. 20. In the present case also, the plaintiffs/ appellants have also field the single appeal against the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs and decreeing of the counter claim of the defendant No.3. 20. In the present case also, the plaintiffs/ appellants have also field the single appeal against the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs and decreeing of the counter claim of the defendant No.3. In view of the law cited supra and in the present facts and circumstances of the case, single appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, point no.1 is decided in the negative and against the appellants/ plaintiffs. Final Order: 21. In view of my above said discussion supra and findings, the present appeal is dismissed being not maintainable and the impugned judgment & decree dated 15.2.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jawali, in Civil Suit No.97/2006, titled as “Parkash Chand & Ors. v. Anjali & Ors.” and Counter Claim No.23/16/2006, titled as “Rattan Chand v. Parkash Chand & Ors.” is affirmed and upheld. Pending application, if any, is disposed off accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Record of learned court below be returned alongwith copy of judgment of this Court. The file of this Court after its due completion be consigned to Record Room.” 7. It is in this backdrop that now two appeals stand filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, as also the order in reference of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA No.57 of 2017, titled Shri Ramesh Chand Versus Om Raj & others and other connected matters, decided on 17.05.2022, this Court is of the considered view that both these appeals merit dismissal. This is for the reason that as the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs by the learned Trial Court and decreeing of the Counter-Claim, filed by defendant No.3 by the learned Trial Court, amounted to passing of two distinct decrees, findings returned wherein, if not assailed independently, admittedly were to act as res judicata, filing of one appeal only against said two decrees at the stage of preferring an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code was fatal as has been rightly held by the learned Appellate Court also. 9. 9. Now, this material illegality which has taken place at the stage of filing of the first appeal cannot be cured at the stage of filing of second appeal by preferring two different appeal, because fact of the matter remains that the plaintiffs, for the reason best known to them, did not prefer two independent appeals (a) against the dismissal of their suit and (b) against the decreeing of the Counter-Claim. 10. In these peculiar circumstances, the findings which have been returned by the learned Appellate Court in Paras19 to 21 of the judgment passed by it, which have been quoted by me hereinabove, do not suffer from any infirmity. 11. Incidently, this issue recently was the subject matter of a reference before this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RSA No.57 of 2017, titled Shri Ramesh Chand Versus Om Raj & others and other connected matters, decided on 17.05.2022, has held as under: “42. The principles deducible from the afore-discussed law can be summarized as follows: (i) When two suits are consolidated and tried together with common issues framed and common evidence led by the parties, resulting in a common judgment and decree, the same can be subjected to challenge by way of a single appeal at the instance of the aggrieved party; (ii) Where a single appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree passed in two suits, which were consolidated and decided by a common judgment, decision of such single appeal, by a common judgment, reversing or modifying the claim in one suit out of the two, can be challenged by the aggrieved party also, in a single appeal. (iii) When two suits though not consolidated but are decided by a common judgment, resulting into preparation of two separate decrees, the aggrieved party would be required to challenge both of them by filing separate appeals; (iv) When both the suit and the counter claim are decreed by a common judgment, regardless of whether separate decree has been prepared in the counter claim, both would be required to be challenged by separate appeals; (v) In a case where two separate appeals are required to be filed against judgment of the suit and the counter claim and if appeal is filed only against one and not against the other, non filing of appeal against such judgment and decree would attach finality thereto and would attract not only the principle of resjudicata but also waiver and estoppal and the judgment and decree not appealed against would be taken to have been acquiesced to by the party not filing appeal; (vi) When however, two appeals are filed against a common judgment passed by the trial Court, both by the plaintiff and the defendant, and are disposed of by the first appellate Court by modifying/reversing/affirming judgment of the trial Court, the aggrieved party, would be required to challenge both by two separate appeals, in absence of which, non-filing of appeal against one shall attract bar of the principles of res-judicata against another. (vii) Where more than one appeals are required to be filed or are filed and one or more of them are dismissed for default, delay or any other similar reason, any such situation would attract res judicata and such dismissal would satisfy the requirement of appeal being heard and finally decided on merits “in a former suit” for the purpose of attracting principles of res judicata. 43. In view of the position of law delineated hereinabove, the judgment passed by this Court in RSA No.561 of 2005, titled Pohlo Ram vs. Jindu Ram and others decided on 28.10.2005 cannot be held to have laid down good law whereas judgments passed in (i) Smt. Satya Devi vs. Partap Singh and others, AIR 2006 HP 75 and (ii) H.P. State Forest Corporation through its Divisional Manager vs. Kahan Singh, 2017(1) Him. L.R. 36 and in (iii) Mohan Singh vs. Inder Singh & others 2017(1) Him. L.R. 368, are held to have been decided correctly.” 12. L.R. 36 and in (iii) Mohan Singh vs. Inder Singh & others 2017(1) Him. L.R. 368, are held to have been decided correctly.” 12. Accordingly, in view of the findings returned hereinabove, as present appeals are not maintainable in the absence of the plaintiffs having preferred two distinct appeal before the learned Trial Court, they are dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.