The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of res judicata applies to subsequent suits, and the discovery of new facts and documents does not permit the filing of a fresh suit if the plea was available in the earlier suit.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The appellants are the proforma defendants and have come up in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2007 passed by learned District Judge (F), Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 68-S/13 of 2005/04.

2. The facts as necessary for the adjudication of the case are that one Udi Ram son of late Sh. Handu at the time of his death was succeeded by his four sons namely Het Ram, Jagat Ram, Mast Ram and Thapi. Het Ram had son proforma defendant No.7 Anokhi Ram and Mohi Ram, plaintiff, Jagat Ram had widow Mathi, Mast Ram had sons Mehar Singh, defendant No.1 and Dharam Singh Defendant No.2, Vidya Devi, daughter, defendant No.3, Thapi had sons Med Ram, defendant No.4 and daughter defendant No.5 Smt. Kalawati maintained that Udi Ram was owner in possession of landed property situated at Mauja Suin, Kogi, Pateog and Mauja Majhiar, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla, H.P. The details of the property was given in para No.4(1) of the plaint. The details of property had also been given which was situated in Suin Kogi. The property situated at Pateog (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), maintained that during his life time, late Sh.Udi Ram himself effected family partition amongst his sons, according to which he gave finally all his moveable and immoveable properties including land at Mauja Pateog to his sons Het Ram and Jagat Ram. The remaining land situated at Mauja Kogi, Majhiar and Suin was kept joint by Udi Ram through a family settlement of his properties effected on 17.6.1930 and the possession of the same was also kept joint. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants are as such co-owners in possession with defendants No. 1 to 5 in respect of the land situated at Mauja Kogi, Majhiar and Suin and are exclusive owners of the property at Village Pateog. The defendants No. 1 to 5 have no right, title or interest in the suit property averred in the plaint that a family settlement which was carried out by late Sh. Udi Ram, whereas Het Ram and Jagat Ram jointly settled at Mauja Pateog and started to own and possess exclusively the total land which was in the ownership and possession of late Sh. Udi Ram. By virtue of the aforesaid family settlement which was done by late Sh. Udi Ram, late Sh. Het Ram and Jagat Ram became absolute owner in possession of the property situated at village Pateog, Tehsil and District Shimla. To this effect in the column of possession in the revenue record the entries finds mention and the defendants No. 1 to 5 have no right, title or interest over the suit property. It was further averred that during the year 1984 in order to bring the correct position in revenue record, a report was lodged with the Halqua Patwari Kasumpti by Med Ram son of late Sh. Thapi Ram etc. vide rapat rojnamcha No. 407, dated 11th June, 1985. It was averred that plaintiffs and proforma defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the total land at mauja Pateog i.e. suit land. It was averred that some of the land is being acquired by the Government of H.P. for use by the Shimla Development Authority. However, it has revealed now, that the defendants No. 1 to 5 on the basis of wrong revenue entries are trying to claim and withdraw the amount of compensation. It was alleged that necessary award for acquisition of land at Mauja Pateog i.e. suit land is likely to be passed and payments are going to be made within 2-3 days. It was averred that defendants No. 1 to 5 have no existing right, title and interest and as such, it was submitted that if the partition has not been established in that event, in the alternative, the plaintiffs and proforma defendant Anokhi Ram have been coming in physical, peaceful, open, uninterrupted and hostile ownership and possession of the suit land for the last more than 60 years and as such they have acquired title in respect of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Land Acquisition