The doctrine of res-judicata aims at putting an end to litigation and is based on public interest. In cases involving minors, the court may reopen a partition if it is proved to be unjust and unfair, with the onus of proof on the party supporting the partition.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Vinod Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Singh and Sunil Kumar Singh all S/o Mahinder Pal and Ashok Kumar Singh S/o late Jai Pal filed a suit being CS (OS) No. 1809 of 2009 against Devraj, Begraj and Ajit Singh all S/o late Ran Singh and Jagat Singh, Kanwar Singh and Narendra Singh all S/o late Ami Singh; Mahendra Pal Singh S/o late Prithi Singh and Ravindra Singh S/o late Jai Pal Singh seeking partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties which comprised of a total area admeasuring 23 bighas and 8 biswas in Village Rithala in Khasra numbers as under:-

189 (Area 1 Bigha 15 Biswas)

190 (Area 2 Bigha 14 Biswas)

191 (Area 3 Bigha 10 Biswas)

193 (Area 2 Bigha 16 Biswas)

208 (Area 5 Bigha 4 Biswas)

209 (Area 3 Bigha 19 Biswas)

210 (Area 3 Bigha 10 Biswas)

2. In CS (OS) No. 1809 of 2009 the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was allowed vide the impugned order dated April 07, 2015 on the ground that the suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata giving rise to the present appeal.

3. Plaintiffs and defendants are all legal heirs of Sheodan Singh who owned the suit properties and the family pedigree is noted.

4. Prior to the filing of the present suit i.e. CS (OS) No. 1809 of 2009 two suits were filed being Suit No. 1299 of 1985 and CS (OS) No. 1159 of 2001. Suit No. 1299 of 1985 was filed by Ran Singh and Ami Singh, both S/o Shivraj Singh against Mahendra Pal Singh, Jai Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh all S/o of Prithi Singh seeking a degree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from interfering in the land in actual possession and ownership of Ran Singh and Ami Singh being Khasra Nos. 209 and 210 and joint possession of khasra Nos. 190 and 191. An ex-parte decree was passed in favour of Ran Singh and Ami Singh which was subsequently set aside. Since Ran Singh and Ami Singh died in the year 1999 and 1996 respectively and their legal heirs did not file any application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC for substitution, Suit No. 1299 of 1985 stood abated on April 09, 2001. The appeal filed by the legal heirs of Ran Singh and Ami Singh was also dismissed on January 29, 2007 and thus the order of abatement of Suit No. 1299 of 1985 has attained finality.

5. Thereafter, Mahendra Pal Singh, Jai Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh all S/o of Prithi Singh filed a suit before this Court being CS (OS) No. 1159 of 2001 against the three sons of Ran Singh i.e. Devraj Singh, Begraj Singh and Ajit Singh and three S/o Ami Singh i.e. Jagat, Kanwar and Narender seeking partition and possession in respect of suit properties as noted above. CS (OS) No. 1159 of 2001 was transferred to District Court and was renumbered as Suit No. 596 of 2008. In the said suit an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants therein pursuant to which the plaint was rejected on May 30, 2009. The reason for rejection of the plaint was that there was no cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation. Defendants in CS (OS) No. 1159 of 2001 did not challenge the order dated May 30, 2009 and hence the said decision has attained finality.

6. After dismissal of CS (OS) No. 1159 of 2001 renumbered as Suit No. 596 of 2008 Vinod Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Singh and Sunil Kumar Singh all S/o Mahendra Pal Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh S/o late Jai Pal Singh filed the present suit i.e. CS (OS) No. 1809 of 2009 seeking partition and possession. It may be noted that four plaintiffs in the present suit, are the sons of two plaintiffs in CS (OS) No. 1159 of 2001 i.e. Mahendra Pal Singh and Jai Pal Singh. In the present suit again an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants which as noted above was allowed and it was held that the suit was liable to be rejected on the ground of res-judicata.

7. In order to test whether the suit is barred by res-judicata it would be appropriate to note the pleadings and relief sought in the two suits. I