JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Defendant is in appeal. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as defendants and respondent as the plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land as described in the head note of the plaint admeasuring 11 kanal, 1 marlas.

3. As per the facts discernible from the record, one Mohinder Lal was owner of the land admeasuring 46 kanal, 9 marlas including the suit land. He sold the same to Karnail Singh, Nirbhai Singh and Gurcharan Singh in the year 1962. Two pre-emption suits were filed to preempt the sale deed executed by Mohinder Lal. One suit was at the behest of Mehar Singh, the present plaintiff. The other suit was filed by one Kishan Chand brother of vender Mohinder Lal. Decree was passed in favour of Kishan Chand on 06.05.1963. It was a consent decree. In terms of the said decree, Kishan Chand was given prior right to preempt sale deed on deposit of Rs.8,500/- by 30.06.1963. In the event of failure on part of Kishan Chand, present plaintiff Mehar Singh was granted right to preempt the sale deed by deposit of Rs.8,500/- upto 31.07.1963. Kishan Chand was not in possession of money. He transferred the decree in favour of Harbans Singh s/o sister of present defendants. The transfer was objected to by the present plaintiff. The objection filed by the plaintiff was upheld by Sub-Judge, Jagraon vide order dated 26.12.1963. Still Kishan Chand executed sale deed Ex.D-1 in favour of Karnail Singh and Nirbhai Singh on 03.11.1965. Present plaintiff again filed suit for pre-emption re-agitating his right to preempt the sale deed being tenant. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed only to the extent of 20 kanal 1 marlas of land. The decree passed by the Trial Court was assailed by both the parties i.e. by the plaintiff Mehar Singh and vendees Karnail Singh and Nirbhai Singh.

4. Appeal preferred by plaintiff Mehar Singh was decreed and the appeal preferred by defendants was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The same was assailed by the defendants before High Court in RSA No.1001 of 1968. The same was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.08.1969 and the plaintiff was held entitled to preempt the sale deed qua whole land measuring 46 kanal 9 marlas. However, in the later suit, there was mis-description of two khasra numbers. Khasra No.75/1/1 was wrongly mentioned as killa No.75/2/1 and khasra number 75/2/2 was wrongly mentioned as killa No.75/1/2. Plaintiff deposited pr-emption money within the stipulated period of time and became owner in possession of the whole land measuring 46 kanal 9 marlas. It was only at the time of sanctioning of mutation that the plaintiff came to know of the aforesaid fact and the actual land bearing khasra No.75/2/2, 1/1 was wrongly mutated in favour of defendants under the influence of Ishar Singh who was revenue officer despite the fact that they lost the legal battle. Plaintiff initially moved application before the Trial Court. The same was dismissed holding that it is this Court which is the proper forum as the decree passed by the Lower Courts now stands merged in the decree passed by the High Court. Plaintiff filed application before this Court, however withdrew the same.

5. Suit was contested by the defendants claiming that the killa bearing No.1/1 and 2/2 were not included in the suit for pre-emption. Plaintiff applied for correction of decree, but withdrew the same and suit is thus estopped by his own act and conduct from filing instant suit. It was further claimed that the defendants filed suit for mesne profit against the plaintiff which was decreed and thus the present suit was barred by res judicata.

6. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether plaintiff is the owner of the suit land by virtue of a decree in the preemption suit? OPD

2. If issue No.1 is not proved, whether the plaintiff has become owner of the