The plea of adverse possession, if not raised in previous suits, is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree of the Court of the Addl. District Judge (Central) 08, Tis Hazari, Delhi of dismissal of Civil Suit No.172/13 (ID No.02401C0105852012) filed by the appellant consequent to the order of rejection of plaint, on the ground of the suit being by way of re-litigation.

2. The appeal came up before this Court first on 22nd November, 2013 when the counsel for the respondents no.1 to 6 as well as the counsel for the respondent no.7 Director of Rehabilitation, Land & Building Department appeared, being on caveat/on advance notice; though none appeared for the respondent no.8, the Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali, Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi but the respondent no.8 being a formal respondent and the plaint of the suit filed by the appellant having been rejected on the application of the respondents no.1 to 6 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the presence of the respondent no.8 was not deemed necessary and the service of notice of the appeal on the respondent no.8 was dispensed with. Considering the nature of the ground of dismissal of the suit and further considering that the execution of the decree in the earlier suit filed by the respondents no.1 to 6 was informed to be listed on 3rd December, 2013 and which proceeding would have been affected by the pendency of the present appeal, with the consent of the counsels the appeal was finally heard on 22nd November, 2013 itself and while reserving judgment, by way of abundant caution, the Trial Court file was also requisitioned and has been received and perused.

3. The appellant/plaintiff on 6th March, 2012 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, for the reliefs of:-

(a) declaration that he is the owner to the extent of half share in respect of property bearing No.16/256-257, Gali No.8-9 Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the settled and continuous possession of the said properties to the knowledge of the respondents no.1 to 6 and Shri Karam Singh;

(b) a decree of possession, directing the respondents/defendants no.1 to 6 to hand over the possession taken by them from the appellant/plaintiff on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2004;

(c) for a decree of possession by directing the respondents/defendants no.1 to 6 to put the plaintiff in possession of half portion of property aforesaid;

(d) for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants no.1 to 6 from dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from the portion of property No.16/257 in his occupation;

(e) for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants no.1 to 6 from parting with the portion of property No.16/256-257 in their possession or from creating any third party interest therein;

(f) for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants no.7&8 from causing any mutation in the ownership and possessory rights of property no.16/256-257;

(g) for mandatory injunction directing the respondent/defendant no.7 to provide residential accommodation to the appellant/plaintiff and his brother as per the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act.

4. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff during the hearing on 22nd November, 2013 contended (and which contentions were, to avoid any ambiguity, recorded in the order dated 22nd November, 2013 in his presence), as under:-

(i) that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit with respect to two separate but adjacent properties namely properties No.256 & 257, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi;

(ii) that one Smt. Prakashwanti was the owner of property No.256;

(iii) that Smt. Prakashwanti died in the year 1985 leaving a Will also of the year 1985 with respect to property No.256 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff who is the son of Smt. Sheelawanti, sister of Smt. Prakashwanti;

(iv) that the respondents/defendants no.1 to 6 are the children of Sh. Karam Singh being the brother of Smt. Prakashwanti and Smt. Sheelawanti;

(v) that the appellant/plaintiff was in possessio