S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE controversy in appeal here is with regard to the plea of res Judicata.
(2.) THE land in suit originally belonged to one Nikka Singh, but it was in the possession of Vir Singh. In October 1946, Nikka Singh sold this land to Kesri Dass, Kesri Dass, not having obtained possession under the sale deed, filed a suit for possession thereof on June 17, 1937 against Nikka Singh and Vir Singh This suit was tried in the High Court on the original side and was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff Kesri Dass on September 1, 1960 One of the findings returned there being that Vir Singh was not in possession of the land in suit as a tenant A plea of adverse possession had also been raised on behalf of Vir Singh, but: it was subsequently given up and was consequently not adjudicated upon. It would appear that despite this decree too, Vir Singh continued in possession of the land in suit The present appeal arises from the suit filed by Ajaib Singh and Jarnail Singh -the two sons of the said Vir Singh deceased, seeking a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with their possession over the land in suit. One of the pleas raised by them in this suit was of adverse possession. This suit was filed on May 7, 1973.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised that the suit of the Plaintiffs was barred by the principle of res judicata in the light of the previous litigation between the parties and their predecessors -in -interest. This objection was upheld and the Plaintiffs were consequently denied the decree for injunction as prayed for.;