IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC and Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

1. This second appeal, under Section 100 CPC, arises out of the concurring judgment dated 06.09.2017 of the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East, in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2017, confirming the judgment dated 09.12.2016 of the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal East, in Original Suit No. 1 of 2015/O.S.(Dcl.) No. 19 of 2015.

Twice unsuccessful, the plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed the said suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the land described in Suit Schedule B and seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.

2. The plaintiff's case was as follows: Ngazek Zimik, his grandfather, was the owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule A hill land situated at Awungtang Village. Suit Schedule B land is a portion of Suit Schedule A hill land, lying towards the west, which is a little larger than half of the entire land. On the death of Ngazek Zimik, his son, Z. Philip Siluiwung, inherited the Suit Schedule A land. Around the year 1982, one S. Shingnaisui tried to encroach upon the southern portion of the suit land but he was prevented from doing so. S. Shingnaisui, however, sold the suit land to the defendants, his relations. The plaintiff got married in the year 1993 and at that time, his father, Z. Philip Siluiwung, gifted the Suit Schedule - A land to him. The plaintiff claimed that he constructed his house thereon and was in possession. He further claimed that he came away to Luiyainaotang Village leaving the Suit Schedule A land in the care of his cousin, Z. Wungmayum. While so, the defendants started digging the suit land in March, 2015, constraining him to institute the suit.

3. The case of the defendants: They are the absolute owners of the suit land, having purchased the same from late S. Shingnaisui, the eldest son of late S. Maham, who was none other than their paternal grandfather. The present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata as the plaintiff's father had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 13 of 1962 against late S. Maham, claiming to be the owner of this very same land, and the said suit was dismissed, by order dated 29.08.1967, holding that the plaintiff's father had failed to prove his title. The plaintiff's father thereupon filed Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1967 before the District Judge, Manipur, and the same was dismissed on 09.09.1969. Second Appeal No. 37 of 1969 was thereupon filed by the plaintiff's father before the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur but this appeal was also dismissed as not pressed, by order dated 11.08.1971.

4. On the basis of these rival pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following issues for determination:

i. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata?

ii. Who has possession of the suit land?

iii. Whether the grandfather of the plaintiff was the original owner of the suit land?

iv. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land?

v. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

5. The plaintiff examined 4 witnesses, including himself, and marked Exs. A/1 to A/6 in evidence. The defendants examined 4 witnesses, including themselves, and marked Exs. B/1 to B/7. Thereupon, the Trial Court considered Issue No. 1 first, viz., whether the suit was barred by res judicata, and held that it was so. Noting that the said issue was not taken up as a preliminary issue, the Trial Court still opined that the suit was amenable to disposal on that issue alone under Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC, without a decision on the other issues. The Trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit with costs on the sole ground that it was barred by res judicata.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2017 before the Ld. District Judge, Imphal East. However, by judgment dated 06.09.2017, the Appellate Court held that no grounds were made out to disturb the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present