The court affirmed that prior judgments establishing land ownership create a statutory bar against subsequent claims, emphasizing the binding nature of res judicata.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since both the appeals (supra), involve common questions of law, besides, when the verdict challenged in both the appeals is common to both, thus, they are amenable to be decided through a common order.

2. In civil suit no. 22 of 2014, an affirmative decree was made by the learned Civil Judge concerned, on 10.07.2015, vis-a-vis the relief claimed in the said suit, inasmuch as, for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction being made, to the effect that the revenue entries in column No. 4 and column No. 5 of jamabandis, of the disputed lands situated within the revenue estate of Village Assan Kalan, Tehsil and District Panipat, are liable to be corrected, in favour of the plaintiffs, given they being the owners and co-sharers vis-a-vis the disputed lands, besides qua the espoused consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants No. 1 to 3 to enter the names of the plaintiffs in equal shares in column No. 4 and column No. 5 of the jamabandis qua the suit property. Moreover, also qua the asking of relief, to the effect that the recording of mutation No.1184 dated 02.09.1956, and, on 27.12.1961, thus depicting the father of the plaintiffs as gair marusi, rather being illegal, null and void, thus, the espousal for a further consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and from alienating the suit property in any manner, became also made.

3. The said affirmative decree became assailed by the appellant-defendant No. 4-Gram Panchayat, as well as by the State of Haryana before the learned First Appellate Court concerned. The said appeals were decided through a common judgment. The learned First Appellate Court through a verdict made on 08.12.2018, allowed both the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court. The relevant part of the verdict made by the learned First Appellate Court is extracted hereinafter.

" ....... Here it is point to mention that in Civil Writ Petition (CWP) no. 8272 of 2013 titled 'Pala Ram v. State of Haryana', Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that the land in dispute vests in Gram Panchayat as Charand and Johar and therefore, cannot be excluded from the Shamlat Deh. In the writ petition, present plaintiffs are arrayed in the list of respondents at serial no. 16 A, B and C. Since the dispute has already been decided by Hon'ble High Court and revision against the order of Hon'ble High Court has already been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, now plaintiffs can not allege that mutation No. 1184 dated 2.9.1956 and 27.12.1961 were wrongly entered. While deciding the case learned lower Court has not taken into consideration the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 8272 of 2013 titled ' Pala Ram v. State of Haryana'. From the judgment in CWP no. 8272 of 2013, it is clear that suit land belongs to Gram Panchayat and therefore, learned lower Court has wrongly held that revenue entries in column no. 4 of ownership and column no. 5 of cultivation of the suit property are liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiffs. In the considered opinion of this Court, learned lower Court has wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs......"

4. Feeling aggrieved from the verdict of the learned First Appellate Judge, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court, the private respondents-defendants therein have instituted the instant two RSAs before this Court.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits, that the learned First Appellate Court was required to look into the entire evidence and to decide the case on its merits as no 'Charand' or pasture land could be reserved as per the schedule under the Consolidation Act and the Rules. The learned First Appellate Court has not given any finding on the merits of the case and merely by relying upon the ju