RSA No.690 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.690 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.01.2009 Smt.Nirmala & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. Smt.Sheela & & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 13.12.2006 and 5.11.2007 passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants was ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/appellants brought a suit against the defendants claiming possession of the property by claiming themselves to be the owners on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 4.4.1981 and 6.4.1981. The suit was contested by the defendants whom the plaintiffs RSA No.690 of 2008 2 claimed to be their tenants. They denied the factum of ownership of the plaintiffs and rather took a plea that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Prior to the filing of the present suit plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit for eviction under the Rent Act against the defendants but they failed to establish the relationship of landlords and tenants, thus, the petition for eviction was dismissed by the authorities under the Rent Act. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of rent proceedings the plaintiffs chose to file another suit against the defendants claiming mesne profit for use and occupation on the plea that the plaintiff/appellants were owners of the property in which the defendant/respondents were unauthorized occupants. One of the issues framed in the said suit was:- “Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute?” Said issue was decided against the appellants and it was held that the plaintiff/appellants had failed to prove their ownership over the property in dispute. This is the third attempt made by the plaintiff/appellants to seek possession from the defendants on the basis of ownership. On the pleadings of the parties learned trial court was pleased to frame the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the premises in dispute, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs can recover Rs.2214/- from the RSA No.690 of 2008 3 defendant, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? OP Parties 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder or non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 10. Relief. On issue No.4, a concurrent finding has been recorded by the learned courts below that the suit was barred by principle of res judicata in view of the decision in the previous suit between the parties which has attained finality. This finding cannot be faulted with. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that previous suit was merely for claiming mesne profit and therefore, it could not operate res judicata. However, this plea cannot be accepted. Once an issue was framed inter se between the parties and final decree stands passed against the appellants and they chose not to agitate further and accepted the decision, the said finding, has been rightly held to operate as res judicata. Thus, this appeal raises no substantial question of law. No merit. Dismissed. 20.01.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge