The dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution does not constitute res judicata, allowing a subsequent suit for similar claims to be maintained if prior findings were not decisively determined.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.8 of 2008, dated 31.01.2011 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, which is arising out of O.S.No.10 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

4. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, workmen or servants from causing interference with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule lands to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts. in Sy.No.184 and Ac.1- 34 gts. in Sy.No.742 of plaintiff No.1 and another Ac.3-00 gts. in Sy.No.184 and Ac.1-34 gts. in Sy.No.742 of plaintiff No.2, situated at Pillalamarry village of Suryapet Mandal.

5. The brief averments of the plaint are that plaintiff No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1 and both are members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family and they are the owners of the suit schedule property in joint possession, management and enjoyment of the suit land and had common interest over the suit land. Further, the names of the plaintiffs were entered in all revenue records as owners and possessors of the suit land and got issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour after due enquiry by the revenue authorities. It is the further contention of plaintiffs that they used to cultivate the suit lands by raising various crops and due to non-availability of suitable farm servant, sometimes the lands were kept vacant for giving to others, for the purpose of grazing cattle and when there was no cultivation, japan babul trees have grown up and later plaintiffs started cleaning the suit land by incurring heavy expenditure. Around the suit land, some lands are divided into plots by various persons for housing activities and some of the defendants, who are real estate businessmen, approached the plaintiffs with a request to sell the suit lands to them, for which, the plaintiffs have not agreed. But the defendants have made illegal attempts to occupy the suit land without there being any right, when the plaintiffs are trying to clean the land for fixing of boundary stones and for fencing the suit land. Due to the unnecessary intervention of the defendants and their threatenings, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction.

6. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a detailed written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiffs and it is contended that the suit schedule lands do not belong to the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs were never in possession of those lands and never cultivated the lands nor raised any crop. The defendants admitted that around the suit land, some land has been made into housing plots and there was a housing society and it is the reason for the plaintiffs to fabricate the documents for filing the suit with false claim in order to grab the land of the defendants. It is the further case of defendants that they are the owners and possessors of the suit land and they never approached the plaintiffs for sale of the suit land and it is a story invented by the plaintiffs.

7. It is the specific contention of the defendants that the suit lands are part and parcel of Ac.14-15 gts., belonging to late Singirikonda Kausalya