VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar was pleased to frame an additional issue and refer the matter back to the learned Trial Court to take additional evidence on the additional issue framed and to return the finding on the said issue.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land in dispute. It was claimed that the plaintiff-respondent was owner of half share of suit land and his brother Ghasita Singh was owner of half share of suit land. It was also claimed that Ghasita Singh settled in Indonesia in the year 1938 and before leaving India he gave his half share of land to the plaintiff-respondent in a family settlement. It was claimed that Ghasita Singh was never married and he had no issue. The claim of the defendant-appellant that she was daughter of Ghasita Singh was denied. It was claimed that Ghasita Singh was married to one Dalip Kaur resident of Allowal in Indonesia but no issue was born out from the wedlock of Ghasita Singh with Dalip Kaur. The mutation sanctioned in favour of Ghasita Singh as sanctioned by the Revenue Court was also challenged being the outcome of impersonation. It was further claimed that Ghasita Singh is alive and as the defendant-appellant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff therefore, suit was filed. The suit was contested by the appellant-respondent and it was claimed that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. It was also claimed that there was litigation inter se the parties regarding the same suit land which was decided by the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Taran Taran in which the plaintiff and defendants were held to be owners of half share. The said judgment was claimed to have attained finality. The other allegations of the plaint were also denied. It was also claimed that the defendant- appellant was entitled to half share of the suit property. The marriage of Ghasita Singh with Dalip Kaur was denied.
(3.) IN the replication, the plaintiff-respondent reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied the averments made in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether Ghasita Singh gave his 1/2 share of the suit land to the plaintiff in a family arrangement ? OPP 2. whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property ? OPP 3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed for ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata ? OPD 6. Relief. Issues No. 1 to 3 were taken up together by the learned Trial Court and the same were decided against the plaintiff-respondent, whereas issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the defendant and it was held that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. ;