T. Vaiphei, J.

1. Both the appeal and revision, which are inter-connected and arising out of the dispute between the same parties over the same disputed plot, were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. The appeal is directed against the order dated 3-3-2004 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong in T.S. No. 4(H) of 2001 rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as being barred by the doctrine of estoppel, while the revision is directed against the order dated 31-3-2009 passed by the Board of Revenue refusing to admit her appeal against the order dated 1-10-2008 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong rejecting her prayer for issuing separate patta to her in respect of the same disputed plot i.e. Plot No. 43 marked as Plot A in the map attached to the family settlement dated 23-6-1984. To simplify the case, I will first decide RFA No. 6(SH) of 2009 and thereafter dispose of, as far as possible, the connected CR(P) No. 8(SH) of 2009 on the basis of my decision thereon. In the appeal, the case of the appellant, as pleaded in the plaint, is that she is the cousin of one Ashok Bhagwandas,