Anurag Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 passed by XV Additional District Judge, in Civil Suit No.94-A/2002, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability of suit and res-judicata.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent/defendant alleging that the suit house bearing Nos.667, 667/1 to 667/3 situated at Kotwali ward, Jabalpur known as "Kudrat Manzil" is ancestral property of Barkatulla and Sheikh Shamsuddin. At present, Barkatulla and Sheikh Shamsuddin are dead. Barkatulla legal heirs wife Smt. Rafiquan Bi, sons Hafizullah (plaintiff), Inayatullah, Habibullah and daughter Smt. Sona Bi had inherited the interest of Late Barkatulla in the property. Similarly, the other co-owners were also legal heirs of Shamsuddin as his wife Smt. Amina Bi, son Jalaluddin and daughter Hamida Bi. Smt. Begum Bi is wife of Jalaluddin. It is not disputed that Barkatulla, Amina Bi, Jalaluddin and Hamida Bi had granted the lease of building "Kudrat Manzil" to Sheikhar Chand Jain by registered lease deed dated 01.05.1968 for ten years. During life time of original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain, his son defendant Inder Kumar Jain had purchased a portion of suit house from co-owners Hamida Bi and Sona Bi by registered sale deed dated 02.02.1982 and 20.09.1982 respectively. Plaintiff Hafizulla being a joint owner of suit house filed a Civil Suit No.31-A/1997 before XI ADJ, Jabalpur and another Civil Suit No.17-A/1997 before District Judge, Jabalpur against the defendants for declaration that the sale deeds dated 02.02.1982 and 20.09.1982 as in effective on the ground that the defendant being a stranger purchaser who has not brought the suit for partition of the house, therefore, his right on the suit house have been extinguished by passage of time under Article 65 of Limitation of Act. In above civil suits, the defendant has filed the written statement, wherein inter alia pleaded that after purchased of the share of Hamida Bi and Sona Bi, the defendant has become the co-owner of the property, therefore, he cannot be evicted.

3. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has instituted a Civil Suit No.147-A/1988 against the original tenant Sheikhar Chand Jain for eviction on various grounds under Section 12(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. During the pendency of the Civil Suit No.147-A/1988 the defendant Sheikhar Chand Jain had died. His wife Smt. Champa Bai and his son Puran Chand Jain and Inder Kumar Jain were brought on record as legal heirs. In the above suit the IX Civil Judge Class-II vide judgment dated 30.07.1991 had found bonfide need of the plaintiff Hafizulla established for his profession of Advocate under Section 12(i)(f) of the Act, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit for eviction at the instance of two co-landlords was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the appellants have filed First Civil Appeal before XII ADJ, registered as Civil Appeal No.61-A/1995, which was dismissed on 28.11.1995. Thereafter, the Second Appeal No.813/1995 was filed by plaintiff, in which the high court had also upheld the bona fide need of the appellants but dismissed the appeal on the ground that the defendant Inder Kumar Jain had purchased the undivided share of Smt. Sona Bi and Smt. Begum Bi by sale deeds dated 02.02.1982 and 20.09.1982 and have become the coowner of the property. His share qua sole owner has not been specified. Therefore, he cannot be evicted at the instance of other co-owners without partition of property.

4. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that earlier suit No.147- A/1998 relates to the dispute between landlord and tenant no question of title was raised in it, whereas, in the present suit which is for possession and mesne profit, the question of title of plaintiff involves. Therefore, the findings in the earlier suit and Second Appeal No.813/1995 shal