1. This is a defendant’s second appeal wherein they have questioned the judgment and decree dated on 17.01.2004, as rendered by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-III, Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2002 “Sant Lal vs. Bachi Ram and Another”. As a consequent thereto the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and suit being Original Suit No. 110 of 1991, Sant Lal vs Bachi Ram and Another which was initially dismissed by the trial court by the judgment dated 20.03.2002, by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Sessions Judge/Xth F.T.C., Dehradun, has been decreed.

2. Consequently, the present second appeal, the second appeal at the stage of admission has been admitted on 29.11.2004, on substantial question of law as framed as question no. 2 and 3 to the following effect; (2) whether due to dismissal of plaintiff’s earlier suit, involving declaration of his rights over Khasra No. 122/66, upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plaintiff-respondent cannot claim any mandatory injunction claiming himself to be the owner of the property, on the basis of the sale deed which has been disbelieved in the earlier suit?” Another question on which the appeal has been admitted was, (3) “whether the suit decreed by the Appellate Court is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 as he is fail to claim the relief in the earlier suit decided against him upto the Hon’ble Apex Court”.

3. More or less on considering the facts and arguments of the counsels, the two issues as such narrated above, they are interconnected to one another as, both deals with the impact of the earlier set of proceedings, which has culminated between the parties, on the same subject matter, at least in relation to the plaintiff upto the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 10.02.1995, which has now been reagitated in the present proceedings.

4. Before venturing into the merits of the second appeal and answering the substantial questions posed by the appellant, the case itself has a chequered history of the litigation, which is necessarily required to be chronologically referred herein for better elucidation of facts and case. There had been the following proceedings which was held between the parties by way of original Suit no. 396 of 1983 Sant Lal vs Bhagat Singh and others, which was decreed and declared in favour of plaintiff Sant Lat on 03.12.1986. Being aggrieved against the said judgment defendant preferred First appeal no. 02 of 1986. Jaganath and others vs Sant Lat and others, the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge Dehradun, allowed the appeal under its judgment dated 24.12.1994 and the decree of trial Court of permanent injunction was set aside.4. Before venturing into the merits of the second appeal and answering the substantial questions posed by the appellant, the case itself has a chequered history of the litigation, which is necessarily required to be chronologically referred herein for better elucidation of facts and case. There had been the following proceedings which was held between the parties by way of original Suit no. 396 of 1983 Sant Lal vs Bhagat Singh and others, which was decreed and declared in favour of plaintiff Sant Lat on 03.12.1986. Being aggrieved against the said judgment defendant preferred First appeal no. 02 of 1986. Jaganath and others vs Sant Lat and others, the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge Dehradun, allowed the appeal under its judgment dated 24.12.1994 and the decree of trial Court of permanent injunction was set aside.

5. The Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 1994 Jagannath others vs Sant Lal and others, was challenged by respondent in the present second appeal no. 12 of 1995 Sant Lal and others vs Bhagat Singh which was dismissed by the High Court on 06.01.1995 and thereafter, the matter travelled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and by filing of an SLP No. 2611 of 1995, Sant Lal vs Bhagat Singh, which too was dismissed on 10.02.1995 as withdrawn. In the aforesaid proceedings, which has cul