PUNIA, Member –This is a second appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (In short ``the Act) is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner dated 13.10.95, whereby the first appeal preferred by the appellant Govind Singh and respondents No.3 to 8 was dismissed.

(2). The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that father of the appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Section 88 and 92-A of the Act against the respondents No.1 & 2 with the averment that the land bearing khasra No. 14 area 69.19 bighas situated at Vill. Devasar is in cultivatory possession of the plaintiff for the last 40 years and this land was also in possession and cultivation of the plaintiff during the settlement operation Smt. 2005 and, therefore, the plaintiff has become khatedar tenant of the land. It was further alleged that the defendants tried to occupy the land alleging that the land in dispute has been allotted to them. Since the plaintiff was khatedar tenant of the land in dispute it could not be allotted to the defendants. The defendants contested the suit by way of written statement and it was alleged that the plaintiff was never in possession of the land in dispute and this land is in possession of the defendants and it was allotted to the defendants in accordance with the law. The plaintiff had no right to acquire khatedari rights for the disputed land. It was also alleged that the plaintiff filed a suit No. 36/65 which was dismissed on 30.9.67 and it was held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land and the said judgment operates as res- judicata in the present suit. Therefore, suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by the principle of res-judicata. The learned trial Court framed five issues on the pleadings of the parties and issue No.2 was tried as preliminary issue being a legal issue which reads as under :

``Whether the judgment passed in previous suit No. 36/65 operates as res-judicata.

(3). The learned trial court heard the arguments of the parties on issue No. 2 and this issue was decided against the plaintiff and it was held that subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by explanation-IV to Section 11 and Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and on that basis suit filed by the appellants father was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.6.83. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff Balji Alias Bal Singh preferred first appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. The appellant expired during the pendency of the appeal; therefore, legal representatives of the appellant were brought on record. After hearing both the parties the learned appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Now the appellant has filed this second appeal.

(4). We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

(5). The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the previous suit filed by the appellants father was only under Section 188 of the Act and no relief for declaration of khatedari rights was sought by the plaintiff, whereas the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff was for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction and cause of action in both the suits was different. Therefore, both the courts below erred in holding that the decision passed in previous suit operates as res- judicata in the subsequent suit. He has placed reliance upon Ram Singh Bankhan vs. Board of Revenue (1), Rama vs. Sangram Singh (2).

(6). The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that for bringing a suit of permanent injunction under Section 188 of the Act plaintiff has to prove that he is a tenant of the land and further that he is in possession of the land. Plaintiff filed previous suit that he was tenant of the land since Smt. 2005 and that plaintiff was in possession of the dispute land. In the present suit plaintiff has pleaded that he is pos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document