The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of claims previously adjudicated, especially when plaintiffs fail to provide new evidence to substantiate their current claims.

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiffs in a suit for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction, are the appellants. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs canvassed for, mainly basing that conclusion on a decision rendered in a previous suit as between the parties. Challenging the correctness of the decision so rendered non-suiting the plaintiffs as unsustainable under law and fact, the appeal is preferred.

2. Notice being given to consider the admissibility of the appeal, the respondents have entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. Plaint 'A' schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs and plaint 'B' schedule to the defendants, and both of them are lying contiguously without any demarcating boundaries, was the case of the plaintiffs. Plaint 'B' schedule property lies on the east and south of plaint 'A' schedule and fixation of the boundaries of plaint 'A' schedule with that property on both sides and a perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint 'A' schedule, was applied for in the suit. There was obstruction from the defendants to the plaintiffs in putting up fences on the eastern and southern boundaries of plaint 'A' schedule was the ground canvassed for to seek the above reliefs under the suit. Reference was also made to a previous suit between the parties, wherein, the 1st plaintiff herein as the next friend of his father had instituted such suit for recovery of possession of a portion of the property from the defendants and negativing of that suit claim by the lower appellate court after a decree was initially passed by the trial court. The defendants resisted the suit claim contending that plaintiffs had no title and possession over the entire property described under plaint 'A' schedule and the suit claims are barred by estoppel and res judicata in view of the decision rendered in the previous suit. Suit has been filed to annex a portion of that pathway used by the defendants on the eastern side of the property described as plaint 'A' schedule and the plaintiffs have no right to put up a fence as canvassed for on the east and south of the property claimed by them as plaint 'A' schedule, was the case of the defendants. On the materials placed, which consisted of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 for the plaintiffs and DW1 for the defendants, the trial court concluding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right over the entire plaint 'A' schedule property described in the suit held they are not entitled to the reliefs canvassed for and dismissed the suit. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court, after re-appreciation of the materials tendered, concurring with the findings entered by the trial court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. As against the concurrent decision so rendered, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that both the courts have gone wrong in negativing the suit claims holding that the suit is barred by res judicata. Previous suit was one for recovery of possession, and in the present suit, relief was canvassed for on the basis of the identification made under the report and plan prepared by the advocate commissioner for fixation of the boundaries of plaint 'A' schedule property and for injunction in the earlier suit, and so much so, there was no bar of res judicata, is the submission of the counsel. In the previous suit, a portion of the plaintiffs' property was sought to be recovered and that was declined. Excluding that portion, plaint 'B' schedule in the previous suit, which was identified in Ext.A5 plan, in the present suit, fixation of boundary with the property of the defendants was sought for on the south of plaint 'A' schedule, along with the fixation of the eastern boundary, both of which had been identified in Ext.A5 plan. The claim so