JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. Defendant No.1-Appellant (Narain Singh) assails the judgment and decree dated 17.05.1990 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.1989 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Senior SubJudge, Faridabad, vide which the suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff (Sohan Lal), was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. Plaintiff-Sohan Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1-Narain Singh from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 11 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated within the revenue estate of Village Mawai, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'suit land'). It was claimed by the plaintiff that he along with defendant No.2-Mohan Lal (proforma defendant), who are real brothers were in cultivating possession under Shamilat Deh, being co-sharers of the suit land. Reliance was placed upon entries in the Jamabandis for the years 1976-77, 1971-72, 1966-67, 1961-62 and 1954-55. It was averred that defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest in the suit land. Despite having been requested, he did not admit the claim of the plaintiff and was bent upon interfering in his peaceful possession, as a result of which the suit was filed.

4. Defendant No.1 opposed the suit. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections with regard to locus standi, the plaintiff not being in possession of the suit property, the suit having been filed in collusion with proforma defendant No.2, cause of action, estoppel, the suit being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties etc. were raised. It was also averred that the suit was barred by res judicata, since the suit in question had been decided by the District Revenue Officer vide judgment dated 27.02.1987 as regards the land comprised in Rectangle No.14, Killa No.12/1(3K-2M) on an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari having been moved by defendant No.1. It had been held vide order dated 27.02.1987 that the land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas (a part of the suit land) was actually in cultivating possession of defendant No.1 and, therefore, ordered for correction of Khasra Girdawari. On merits also, the same stand was taken.

5. Replication was filed, in which the contents of the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are in cultivating possession of the land as co-sharers?

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?

5. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of respondent judicata?

6. Whether the suit is collusive, as alleged?

7. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?

8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties?

9. Relief.'

7. Parties led their respective evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the first appellate Court leading to the filing of the present second appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

9. It was submitted by learned counsel representing defendant No.1 that both the Courts below had erred in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Reference was made to the order dated 27.02.1987 (Ex.D1) passed by the District Revenue Officer, vide which it had been held that the possession over land measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas was that of defendant No.1. Reference was also made to the revenue record produced by the plaintiff and it was sub