The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata in property disputes, which prevents parties from re-litigating issues that have already been decided in earlier judgments.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. Appl. No. 19822/2018 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. Appl. No. 19823/2018 (for delay)

2. For the reasons stated in this application, the delay of 3 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned, subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 408/2018 and C.M. Appl. No. 19821/2018 (for stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by three of the defendants in the suit, impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 1.3.2018 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition etc of the suit property being 1/3rd share comprised in Khasra no. 889/226 measuring 2 bighas and Khasra no. 891/227 measuring 2 bighas 1 biswas of land situated within the Abadi Deh of Village Haidarpur, Delhi. Plaintiffs are the legal heris of the branch of Sh. Ram Kishan the son of Sh. Har Dutt Sharma the original owner of the property, and the defendants (including the three of the defendants being the appellants) were the legal heirs of Sh. Shiv Narain, the other son Sh. Har Dutt Sharma. I may note that there is no dispute that the subject suit property is also numbered as property no. 222, Village Haidarpur, Delhi.

4. For the reason that this appeal is being disposed of on the solitary point of res-judicata, I need not extensively refer, to the facts and suffice to state that admittedly the suit property belonged to Sh. Har Dutt Sharma who had two sons, namely, Sh. Ram Kishan and Sh. Shiv Narain. Plaintiffs in the suit were the legal heirs from the branch of the deceased Sh. Ram Kishan whereas the defendants, including the appellants, were the legal heirs of the branch of the other deceased son Sh. Shiv Narain. The issue was that whether the suit property was already partitioned by late Sh. Har Dutt Sharma in his lifetime whereby as per the defendants in the suit (including the three appellants), the suit property was given to Sh. Shiv Narain the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants including the appellants.

5. Trial court has in this regard in para 36 of the impugned judgment held that this very issue was an issue between same parties in suit no. 7488/2016 which was filed by the father of the appellants/defendants. In this earlier decided suit, the father of the appellants/defendants had pleaded that the suit property was allotted to him on partition, but this case of the appellants/defendants was disbelieved and the suit filed by the father of the appellants/defendants seeking reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction was dismissed. The relevant para 36 of the impugned judgment of the trial court in the present suit, holding that the appellants/defendants are prevented by the doctrine of res judicata in raising the same ground which has achieved finality against them in terms of the earlier judgment dated 26.9.2017, reads as under:-

“36. Further during the course of final arguments it was brought to the notice of the court that vide detail judgment dated 26.09.2017 suit bearing no. 7488/16 filed by the father of the defendants was dismissed and copy of the said judgment was placed on record and Ld. Counsel for defendant fairly conceded during the course of the arguments that said judgment can be taken on record and considered by this court. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that no appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the said judgment and therefore, the findings recorded therein have attained finality. In the said judgment also defendant’s contention that suit property was partitioned by Late Sh. Har Dutt Sharma during his lifetime was held to have been not proved therein. Similarly, Will was also held to have been not proved therein. Therefore, the present question as to whether the suit property was partitioned by the Late Sh. Har Dutt Sharma already stands decided against the defendants and therefore, the same is require