The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res-judicata in property disputes, emphasizing the finality of earlier judgments and the conditions required for res-judicata to apply.

JUDGMENT :

Lisa Gill, J.

1. Appellants, who were arrayed as plaintiffs nos. 3, 4 and 6, before the learned trial Court, are aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 05.08.1998, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Mahendergarh, as well as judgment and decree dated 25.08.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 67 Kanals 15 Marlas, as detailed in the plaint. It is pleaded that Smt. Lado wife of Nand Lal, was the owner of the land measuring 112 Kanals 4 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Village Pota. Mutation of inheritance of the land was sanctioned on 26.05.1959 pursuant to her death on 31.04.1958. She died intestate. Mutation to the extent of 1/5th share was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Juwahara wife of Pehlad, predecessor-in-interest of some of the defendants. Mutation of remaining 4/5th share was sanctioned in favour of Mohariya, Sheotaj, Khuba and Net Ram sons of Mam Chand and Mohabata, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants except the legal representatives of Smt. Sukhdevi and Jai Devi, daughters of Mam Chand and sisters of Mohariya, Sheotaj, Khuba and Net Ram. Mohariya, Khuba and Net Ram, instituted a civil suit on 11.04.1960 challenging mutation of Smt. Lado's estate to the extent of 1/5th share in favour of Jawahara. It was pleaded by them that they were the sole legal heirs of Smt. Lado being nearest collaterals. Sheotaj son of Mam Chand, had since passed away issue-less, his share was also claimed by the plaintiffs. A part of the land was claimed to be in possession of the plaintiffs and a part thereof measuring 67 Kanals 15 Marlas in possession of the defendants. In the previous suit, the plaintiffs also sought possession thereof.

3. Defendants in the previous suit contested the said suit on various grounds including that of non-joinder of necessary parties while pleading that Sukhdevi and Jai Devi, daughters of Mam Chand/their legal representatives, were necessary parties to the suit. Defendants further claimed that Smt. Lado had left the village 40-50 years prior to her death after handing over possession of the suit property to them and she started living at her parental village Nishan. They claimed to be absolute owners of the land in possession and further they had perfected their title by adverse possession.

4. The first suit, filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the learned trial Court, while holding that they were the sole legal heirs of Smt. Lado and Sheotaj. It was held that possession of the defendants did not ripen into ownership by way of adverse possession. Non impleadment of Sukhdevi and Jai Devi, it was held, was not fatal, on the ground that any co-sharer can bring a suit for possession on behalf of all the co-sharers. Jai Devi, it is observed has appeared as a witness and deposed that she had no interest in the suit land.

5. Defendants preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. It was held that Sukhdevi and Jai Devi were necessary parties to the suit being legal heirs of Smt. Lado. The suit was held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defect was held not curable even by the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Regular Second Appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed by this Court. An application moved by the plaintiffs before this Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, to implead the legal representatives of Sukhdevi was dismissed. Another application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, for additional evidence to prove the death of Sukhdevi, was also dismissed. After dismissal of the application, the plaintiffs sought a certificate of fitness for filing letters patent appeal, which was dismi