ORDER : 1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Civil Suit No.24/07 whereby while deciding issue No.3 as a preliminary issue, the learned Court below held that the suit in question would not be barred by res judicata. 2. The facts of the case are that a suit for declaration, possession and injunction was preferred by one Chandrasekhar against the defendant Pushpa Devi. Issue no.3 as framed in the said suit was: ^^vk;k ;g okn /kkjk 11 lhihlh rFkk vkns'k 2 fu;e 2 lhihlh ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ckf/kr gksdj iks"k.kh; ugha gS \^^ 3. The Court proceeded on to decide issue No.3 as a preliminary issue vide impugned order dated 19.07.2013 in favour of the plaintiff and held the suit to be not barred in terms of Section 11 and Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. 4. The case of the defendant was that the present plaintiff Chandrasekhar purchased the property in question from one Shyam Lal. Earlier, a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was filed by Shyam Lal in the year 2004 against the present petitioner-defendant Pushpa Devi. In the said suit, issue No.1 was framed as under: ^^¼1½ vk;k okn i= ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa of.kZr iM+kSlksa ds uki dk Hkw[k.M oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk gS\^^ Vide judgment and decree dated 06.11.2006, the suit as preferred by Shyam Lal was dismissed and issue No.1 was decided against him. In the said suit, issue No.1 was framed as under: ^^¼1½ vk;k okn i= ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa of.kZr iM+kSlksa ds uki dk Hkw[k.M oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk gS\^^ Vide judgment and decree dated 06.11.2006, the suit as preferred by Shyam Lal was dismissed and issue No.1 was decided against him. The Court therein held as under: ^^oknh ds okn dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij Fkk ijUrq mlus fooknxzLr lEifRr ij viuh ekS:lh tk;nkn gksdj caVokjs esa vius fgLls esa vkus ckcr~ dksbZ fy[kkiढ+h ;k vU; lk{; is'k ugha dh gSA u gh vius iwoZtksa dk 'ktjk gh oknh us vius okn i= esa is'k fd;k gS ftlls fd ;g Li”V gks lds fd fdl izdkj fookfnr lEifRr oknh ds fgLls esa vkbZ gSA fookfnr lEifr ds vkf/kiR; ckcr~ oknh us dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gSA Lo;a oknh us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds ikl bl edku ckcr~ dksbZ jlhn ugha gS tks dHkh tek djkbZ gksA tgka rd pkSd o ysVªhu oknh o izfroknhx.k ds 'kkeykrh gksus dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k esa Hkh oknh ds rF;ksa dk [k.Mu djrs gq;s izfroknhx.k us viuh futh LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; ds gksuk crk;k gSA oknh us mDr pkSd o ysVªhu ds 'kkeykrh gkssus ckcr~ dksbZ fy[kkiढ+h U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha dh gSA tcfd izfrijh{kk esa mlus ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd caVokjs dh fy[kkiढ+h ucZnkckbZ ds ikl gS ftlls mldk O;ogkj vPNk gS ijUrq vkxs ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd eSa mlls fy[kkiढ+h yk ldrk gwa ijUrq oknh us dksbZ fy[kkiढ+h ykdj is'k ugha dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd oknh us fy[kkiढ+h ucZnkckbZ ds ikl gksuk o mlls vius vPNk O;ogkj gksuk crk;k gS ijUrq fy[kkiढ+h ykdj is'k ugha dh gS ftlls fd ;g Li"V gks lds fd fookfnr pkSd o ysVªhu 'kkeykrh gS ,oa fooknxzLr tk;nkn oknh dks caVokjs esa izkIr gqbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh mDr nksuksa fook|d mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vius gd esa lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA vr% fook|d la- 1 o 2 oknh ds fo:) o izfroknhx.k ds gd esa r; dh tkrh gSA” 5. The case of the defendant was that in the earlier suit, the same points of determination were under consideration and the issue was substantially the same. The case of the defendant was that in the earlier suit, the same points of determination were under consideration and the issue was substantially the same. Issue No.1 wherein the factum of ownership and possession of the plaintiff was in question, was specifically decided against the plaintiff. Meaning thereby, the issue of ownership was decided against the plaintiff and the present plaintiff Chandrasekhar, who stepped into the shoes of the earlier plaintiff, would definitely be bound by the said finding. 6. The Court below while deciding the present issue No.3 against the plaintiff held that the question of ownership was left open in the earlier suit and hence, it cannot be held that the issue had been finally adjudicated and determined. With the above finding, the Court held the suit not to be barred by res judicata. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Court below is totally erroneous as the issue was not left open in the earlier suit. He submitted that a perusal of the finding as recorded in the earlier suit would make it clear that the same was a final adjudication/determination on the issue of ownership and possession. It was nowhere the observation of the Court that the issue would remain open. Learned counsel submitted that although earlier was a suit for injunction, as a specific issue qua ownership and possession was also framed in the same, which was not objected to by the defendant and further, the issue was finally adjudicated and determined which was not further assailed by the plaintiff, the said issue shall be deemed to have been finally decided/adjudicated and determined for all purposes. It cannot be held that the issue remained open. In support of his submission counsel relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) vs. Mahant Ram Niwas & Anr., (2008) 11 SCC 753 and the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court passed in Yajaman Gowraiah (deceased) through LRs. vs. N.V.S. Shivaram (Deceased) through LRs. And Ors., 2010 (2) Civil LJ 3. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that even if it is assumed that the present suit has been raised on a new ground, the same is impermissible in terms of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. vs. N.V.S. Shivaram (Deceased) through LRs. And Ors., 2010 (2) Civil LJ 3. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that even if it is assumed that the present suit has been raised on a new ground, the same is impermissible in terms of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC. In terms of Order 2 Rule 2, CPC, all the claims/grounds which could have been raised but were not raised would be deemed to have been relinquished. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the earlier was a suit simplicitor for injunction whereas the present is a suit for declaration too. Therefore, the subject matter being different and further, the parties to the suit being not the same, the principle of res judicata would not apply. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is an admitted fact that the present plaintiff Chandrasekhar purchased the property in question from Shyam Lal and stepped into his shoes. It is also undisputed on record that Shyam Lal preferred a suit for injunction in the year 2004 against the present defendant Pushpa Devi. Although the said suit was for injunction, issue No.1 to the effect - “Whether the property in question was of the ownership and possession of the plaintiff”, was framed. The said issue was decided against plaintiff Shyam Lal by the Court while observing that Shyam Lal, in his cross examination, specifically admitted that he had no document to prove the fact that the property in question was inherited by him by virtue of partition. The Court specifically held that the plaintiff did not file any document on record to prove his possession also on the property and hence decided the said issue against the plaintiff. 12. Issue No.1 as framed in the present suit is as under:- ^^vk;k oknxzLr Hkw[kaM oknh ds LokfeRo dk gS\^^ A bare perusal of the above issue No.1 as framed in the present suit and issue No.1 as framed in the earlier suit makes it crystal clear that the issue in both the suits are directly and substantially the same. It is the settled proposition of law that when the same issue is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit, the decree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata. It is the settled proposition of law that when the same issue is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit, the decree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sulochana Amma vs. Narayana Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14 held as under:- “5. Section 11 of C.P.C. embodies the rule of conclusiveness as evidence or bars as a plea as issue tried in an earlier suit founded on a plaint in which the matter is directly and substantially in issue and became final. In a later suit between the same parties or their privies in a competent court to try such subsequent suit in which the issue has been directly and substantially raised and decided in the judgment and decree in the former suit would operate as res judicata.” 13. Dealing with the issue whether the finding on an issue relating to title in an earlier suit for injunction would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for declaration, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594 , specifically held that even if in a suit for injunction, a specific issue in regard to title had been raised and a finding qua the same had been recorded, the said decision attains finality. 14. The above proposition of law has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yajaman Gowraiah (Deceased) through Lrs. vs. N.V.S. Shivaram (Deceased) through Lrs. & Ors., 2010 (2) Civil LJ 3, wherein it has been held that merely because the earlier suit was for the relief of permanent injunction alone, the finding recorded in the said proceedings cannot be held to be not binding on the parties in the subsequent suit for declaration of title. 15. In view of the above settled proposition of law, this Court is of the clear opinion that once the issue regarding the ownership and possession had been decided against Shyam Lal in the earlier suit, the present plaintiff Chandrasekhar, being the purchaser of the said property from Shyam Lal, would definitely be bound by the same. 15. In view of the above settled proposition of law, this Court is of the clear opinion that once the issue regarding the ownership and possession had been decided against Shyam Lal in the earlier suit, the present plaintiff Chandrasekhar, being the purchaser of the said property from Shyam Lal, would definitely be bound by the same. The present plaintiff cannot be permitted to set up a total new case and to prove his ownership de hors the findings in the earlier suit. Therefore, the findings of the Court below being totally against the settled principles of law cannot be affirmed and deserves to be reversed. 16. In view of the above observations, issue No.3 is decided in favour of the petitioner defendant and against the plaintiff and it is held that the suit in question is barred by the principles of res judicata. 17. The present revision petition is hence, allowed. Order dated 19.07.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand in Civil Suit No.24/07 is hereby set aside and as a consequence, the suit stands dismissed. The learned Court below shall direct for the decree to be drawn accordingly. 18. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.