The principle of res judicata applies when two connected suits have been tried together and the findings recorded in one suit have become final in the absence of an appeal, barring the maintainability of an appeal against the findings recorded in the other suit.

V.M. Jain, J.: This regular second appeal has been filed by defendant-appellant Smt. Satya Devi against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the two suits, one filed by Partap Singh and the other Smt. Suhli Devi were decreed and the sale deed in favour of Smt. Satya Devi, was held to be illegal and void and the appeal filed by Smt. Satya Devi, was dismissed by the learned District Judge.

2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that two suits were filed before the trial Court. One suit was filed by Partap Singh plaintiff against Smt. Suhli Devi, Smt. Satya Devi and Milkhi Ram, as defendants. It was a suit for possession by way of specific performance. The other suit was filed by Smt. Suhli Devi plaintiff against Milkhi Ram, Smt. Satya Devi and Partap Singh as defendants. It was a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. Both the suits were consolidated, vide order dated 20.9.1995 and it was directed that the evidence shall be recorded in the suit titled as Partap Singh vs. Suhli Devi etc. and that the evidence recorded in the said suit shall also be read as evidence in the other suit filed by Smt. Suhli Devi against Milkhi Devi etc. After hearing both sides, the learned trial court decreed both the suits. A decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.12.1996 was passed in favour of Partap Singh plaintiff and against Smt. Suhli Devi, Smt. Satya Devi and Milkhi Ram defendants, on payment of the balance consideration of Rs.11,000/- and Smt. Suhli Devi was held to be owner in possession of the suit land. Furthermore, the sale deed executed by Milkhi Ram as general attorney of Smt. Suhli Devi in favour of Smt. Satya Devi was held to be illegal and void and without consideration, being the result of undue influence and misrepresentation and defendants Milkhi Ram and Smt. Satya Devi were restrained from interfering with the possession of Smt. Suhli Devi over the suit land by way of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and the revenue entries to the contrary were also held to be illegal.

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 16.12.1997 passed by the trial Court decreeing both the suits. Smt. Satya Devi defendant filed only one appeal before the District Judge, Hamirpur, in the memorandum of appeal, it was alleged that it was an appeal against the judgment and decrees dated 16.12.1997 in the civil suits Partap Singh vs. Smt Suhli Devi etc. and Smt. Suhli Devi Vs. Milkhi Ram etc. In the said memorandum of appeal filed by Smt. Satya Devi, Partap Singh was shown as plaintiff-respondent, whereas Smt. Suhli Devi and Milkhi Ram were shown as defendants, while Smt. Satya Devi was shown as the appellant. In the said memorandum of appeal, when the particulars of the suit against which the appeal was filed were mentioned, Smt. Satya Devi appellant had mentioned the particulars of only civil suit No. 305 of 1993 RBT 382/1994, which was the suit filed by Partap Singh against Smt. Suhli Devi etc. and the particulars of the other suit filed by Smt. Suhli Devi, had not been given in the memorandum of appeal, where the particulars of the suit appealed against are required to be given. However, in the prayer clause it was prayed that the judgment and decrees in both the suits be set aside and the appeal be accepted. Along with the said memorandum of appeal. Smt. Satya Devi had filed certified copy of the common judgment dated 16.12.1997 and also the certified copy of the decree framed by the trial court in the civil suit Smt. Suhli Devi vs. Milkhi Ram etc. The certified copy of the decreed sheet in the other suit filed by Partap Singh against Smt. Suhli Devi etc had not been filed along with the memorandum of appeal. After hearing both sides, the learned District Judge dismissed the said appeal filed by Smt. Satya Devi, on merits. Aggrieved against the same, Smt. Satya Devi filed