A party cannot reopen issues previously settled by a competent court. The principle of res judicata applies when prior judgments are based on the same material facts and parties involved.

1. This appeal under S.100 of CPC is preferred challenging the judgment dated 09.11.2022 and consequential decree dated 17.11.2022 delivered by Learned District Judge, Unakoti District, Kailashahar in connection with case No. TA No.5 of 2020. By the said judgment and decree, Learned 1st Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 31.01.2020 and consequential decree dated 13.02.2020 delivered by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unakoti District, Kailashahar (Court No.1) in connection with case No.TS No.1 of 2019.

2. Heard Learned Counsels Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal along with Learned Counsel, Mr. T. K. Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the appellants and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Hare Krishna Bhowmik for the contesting respondent - defendants.

3. Before coming to the merit of the appeal now let us discuss about the subject matter of the dispute amongst the rival parties. The appellants as plaintiffs instituted a suit bearing No.T.S. No.1 of 2019 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unakoti District, Kailashahar with the plea that the suit land as described in the first schedule of the plaint measuring 0.50 acre was originally belonged to the father of the appellant - plaintiffs namely Mahmud Ali who died in the year 1988. After his death, the appellant - plaintiffs became the owner of the suit land. According to the appellants, their predecessor father Mahmud Ali was illiterate, rustic person and did not execute any sale deed in respect of the suit land during his lifetime and till his death, the suit land was under his possession but on 02.05.2016, the appellant - plaintiff No.1 for the first time came to know the existence of two purported sale deeds bearing No.1-4901 dated 21.07.1975 and 1-4902 dated 21.07.1975 executed by Mahmud Ali in favour of respondent - defendant No.6. The appellant - plaintiff accordingly obtained certified copy on 03.10.2016 and came to know about the deeds. It was the further case of the appellant - plaintiffs that the defendant No.6 transferred the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 by sale deed No.1-318 dated 31.01.1976 and obtained copy on 03.10.2016 and also came to know that the defendant No.1 transferred the suit land in favour of respondent - defendant No.3 by registered sale deed No.1-1894 dated 11.07.1986 and obtained the certified copy on 31.10.2017. It was further asserted by the appellant - plaintiffs that the sale deeds executed by Mahmud Ali were forged because Mahmud Ali never appear before the office of Sub- Registrar and never admitted the execution of those deeds and possession of the suit land was never delivered to the purchaser by Mahmud Ali and no purchaser took possession of the suit land in view of the purchased deed and with that story, the appellant - plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of right, title, interest described in the first schedule of the plaint granting decree for recovery of possession of the suit land described in the first schedule after evicting the respondent - defendants and their men and agents from the suit land and also for a decree that the suit instruments described in the second schedule below are and void, effect of fraud, collusion, fake personation and not binding upon the appellant - plaintiffs.

4. On receipt of notice, the respondent - defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 contested the suit by filling joint written statement denying all the plea of the plain