The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of res judicata applies when two suits involving the same property and same questions are consolidated, heard, and decided by a common judgment, rendering an appeal filed against one of the decrees not maintainable.

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

The regular second appeal has been filed by Nirmal Kaur plaintiff against concurrent dismissal of her suit by the Courts below.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their original position in the plaint.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendants to vacate one room and kitchen of the property detailed in the suit and to hand over the vacant physical possession thereof to her.

4. On notice, the counter claim was filed by defendant No.1 for declaration and joint possession to the effect that the counter claimant is a co-sharer in possession to the extent of half share in the house bearing No.235 situated at Ghanupur Chheharta, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The trial Court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim.

5. The plaintiff filed the single first appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017. The said appeal was dismissed being not maintainable as decree of counter claim and judgment has not been specifically challenged.

6. The present appeal has been filed having a grievance that learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the First Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

8. The issue that when two suits or a suit and a counter claim are consolidated and decided by a common judgment, one appeal is not maintainable is no longer res-integra.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Premier Tyres Limited vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 1993(Sup2) SCC 146 held as under :-

“4. Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect of non filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follows when a judgment or decree in a connected suit is not appealed from.

5. Mention may be made of a Constitution bench decision in Badri Narayan Singh vs. Kamdeo Prasad Singh, AIR 1962 SC 338. In an election petition filed by the respondent a declaration was sought to declare the election of appellant as invalid and to declare the respondent as the elected candidate. The tribunal granted first relief only. Both appellant and respondent filed appeals in the High Court. The appellant's appeal was dismissed but that of respondent was allowed. The appellant challenged the order passed in favour of respondent in his appeal. It was dismissed and preliminary objection of the respondent was upheld. The Court observed, 'We are therefore of opinion that so long as the order in the appellant's appeal No. 7 confirming the order setting aside his election on the ground that he was a holder of an office of profit under the Bihar Government and therefore could not have been a properly nominated candidate stands, he cannot question the finding about his holding an office of profit, in the present appeal, which is founded on the contention that that finding is incorrect.

6. Thus the finality of finding recorded in the connected suit, due to non filing appeal, precluded the Court from proceeding with appeal in other suit. In any view of the matter the order of the High Court is not liable to interference.”

10. This Court in case of Sukhdev Singh vs. Baldev Singh and others, 2014(4) PLR 651 relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbans Singh and others vs. Sant Hari Singh and others, AIR 2009 SC 1819 has held as under :-

“13. Moreover, the plaintiff has not preferred separate appeal challenging the acceptance of counter-claim o