JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The correctness of findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below is challenged by the plaintiffs in this appeal. Their suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that late Sh. Krishna during his lifetime partitioned the entire agricultural land, which was further reiterated by another memorandum of partition dated 09.06.1977 and that, the parties are the separate owners in possession of the area allocated to them, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. At this stage, it would be appropriate to draw a family tree to ensure clarity, which is drawn as under:-

Partap Singh

Kishan Singh

Bachan Kaur

Hardev Singh

Ajmer Kaur

Lal Singh

Surjit Singh

Jagroop Singh

Balvir Singh

Balvir Kaur

Gurdev Singh

Gursewak Singh

Amarpal Singh

Jeet Kaur

Nachhattar Kaur

Harpal Singh

Sinder Kaur

Baldev Singh

2. In the considered view of the Court the following two questions require adjudication:-

1. Whether unregistered memoranda of family settlement are inadmissible as evidence?

2. Whether a previous judgment passed in a suit seeking an injunction be considered as res judicata in a subsequent suit seeking a declaration decree, unless the specific issue in question was directly and substantially contested in the previous suit and the pleadings of the first suit were never produced or proved?

3. The plaintiffs namely Sh. Gurdev Singh and Sh. Hardev Singh, sons of Sh. Krishan Singh claimed that late Sh. Krishan Singh during his lifetime allocated the specific shares amongst them, which was acknowledged in the memorandum of partition dated 14.09.1968. After the death of Sh. Krishan Singh, another memorandum of partition was executed between the parties on 09.06.1977. Defendant No.1 and Sh. Baldev Singh have started resiling from the arrangement and consequently, the suit has been filed. On notice, the defendant contested the suit on the ground that the agreement dated 09.06.1977, being unregistered, is not admissible in evidence. It was asserted that no partition took place either on 14.09.1968 or on 09.06.1977. Defendant No.6 to 9 and 14 to 16 by filing the written statement claimed that they have purchased 6 kanals land vide sale deed dated 25.11.2002, from the plaintiff Sh. Gurdev Singh, Sh. Balvir Singh, Sh. Lal Singh and Sh. Hardev Singh.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were culled out by the trial Court for adjudication:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the property in dispute as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time of limitation? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

8. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

9. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 35A CPC? OPD 10. Relief."

5. The plaintiffs in the oral evidence examined Sh. Subhash Kumar, who identified the handwriting and signatures of the scribe Sh. Bindra Ban Sheori, scribe of memorandum dated 14.09.1968, PW-3 Sh. Harnek Singh, the marginal witness of memorandum dated 14.09.1968, PW-3 Sh. Pritam Singh son of Sh. Mastan Singh, who identified the signatures of his father Sh. Mastan Singh on memorandum dated 09.06.1977, PW-4, Sh. Senapati Rai son of Sh. Ram Nath (scribe), who prove