- (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 11. 6. 1954 upholding the decree of the trial court whereby the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant as trespasser was dismissed.
(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The only point urged before us by the appellant is that the finding given in the proceedings under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance did not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit and as such the lower courts were wrong in applying the principle of resjudicata in the present case. On behalf of the respondent reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of the Board reported in 1954 R. L. W. (Revenue Supplement) page 31 (Bechan Singh vs. Panna) wherein it was held that the decision under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. WE find ourselves in agreement with the views expressed therein. In the present case the respondents brought a claim for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Ordinance against the appellant and was successful therein on the finding that he was a tenant of the land in dispute and was dispossessed wrongfully within three months prior to the presentation of the application. The plaintiff who Was the opposite party in those proceedings subsequently filed this with the allegation that the defendant is a trespasser on the land in dispute. Obviously he cannot be allowed to re-agitate this question as it had been decided by a competent court in a previous proceeding between the same parties. Reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant on A. I. R. 1940 P. C. 7. In that case "the order was made in the presence of five members of the family and it is not shown that the other members are bound by it according to any principle of representation. Hence it is difficult to see how these other members can be prevented from claiming the property as belonging to their joint family. " This was the reason on which the order of the District Judge in that case was not held conclusive. It was further observed that the order of the District Judge under sec. 3 and 6 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act was not made final by any provision of the Act. " Thus obviously this decision has no application to the present case. In the first place the parties to the present suit were the same as in the proceedings under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. Secondly under sec. 10 of the ordinance no appeal lies from any order of the S. D. O. passed under the The doctrine of "res-judicata" is aimed at superfluous suits and is really one of convenience and rest and not of absolute justice and but for this rule there would be no end to litigation and no security for any person. The rights of persons would be involved in endless confusion and great injustice done under the over of law. The rule is intended not only to prevent a new decision but also to present a new investigation so that the same person cannot be harassed again and again in various proceedings in the same question. " (Chitaleys C. P. C. 1950 Edition page 170 ). Applying these principles to the present case we are clearly of the opinion that the present suit was rightly held to be barred by general principles of res-judicata by the lower courts. There is thus no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .;