- (1.) THIS is the unsuccessful plaintiff's second appeal against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, whereby the decree of the trial court was reversed and appellant's suit for recovery of possession and correction of entries in the khasra teeps Svt. 2003 to 2005 was dismissed.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well The lower appellate court has held that the appellant's suit was barred by res-judicata. To appreciate this argument it is necessary to examine the relevant facts. In the Svt. 2005 jamabandi padma respondent, Mangla,Bhonra etc. are recorded as proprietors of the land in dispute. Jawali appellant is recorded as non-occupancy tenant and Padma respondent is shown as a sub-tenant under Jawali. Jawali applied against Padma on 20-8.49 before the Anti Ejectment Officer Bharatpur under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, alleging that Padma had wrongfully dispossessed him in the preceding Sarwan and that as Padma was only a sub-tenant he had no right to dispossess Jawali. Jawali prayed for re-instatement over the land in dispute. This request was rejected on 7.9.1949 as it was found that Padma was a sub-tenant and was not liable to ejectment. Thereafter Jawali brough this suit on 15.10.1949 for correction of entries of khasra teep Svt. 2003. 2004 and 2005 with the allegations that the respondent Padma had got them in collusion with the Patwari. It is significant to observe that in this plaint the averment was that Jawali was in possession of the land in dispute and efforts were being made by Padma to dispossess him on the basis of these entries. However, on 29.11.1949 an amendment was sought whereby a prayer for recovery of possession was added to the relief sought without, however, making any specific mention as to when and how Jawali was dispossessed from the land in dispute. The trial court decreed the suit in toto. The defendant went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who accepted the same and held that the present suit was barred by res-judicata inasmuch as the matter had already been heard and decided in the earlier R.P.T.O., proceedings between the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that as the Anti-Ejectment Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain this subsequent suit, his decision in the case under the R.P.T.O. could not operate as res-judicata. The point stands conclusively determined by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1953 Supreme Court 33. It was observed therein that: - "The condition regarding the competency of the former court to try the subsequent suit is one of the limitations engrafted on the general rule of res-judicata by sec. 11 of the Code and has application to suits alone. When a plea of res-judicata is founded upon general principles of law all that is necessary to establish is that the court that heard and decided the former case was a court of competent jurisdiction. It does not seem necessary in such cases to further prove that it has jurisdiction to hear the later suit. A plea of res-judicata on general principles can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of courts of exclusive jurisdiction like Revenue Courts, Land Acquisition Courts, Administrative Courts etc. These courts are not entitled to try the regular suit and they only exercise special jurisdiction conferred upon them by the Statute." It was also argued on behalf of the appellant that even if it be held that the present suit is barred by res judicata the bar would be operative only against the relief for recovery of possession. We find ourselves in agreement with this view. The only point that can be deemed to have been substantially and directly in the issue in the R.P.T.O. proceedings was as to whether Jawali was in possession as a tenant over the land in dispute within three months next prior to his application under the R.P.T.O and whether Padma was in possession as a trespasser or as a sub-tenant. The finding of the courts was that Padma was in possession of this land in dispute as a sub-tenant. Hence it is not open to Jawali now to agitated this question again and to allege that Padma is not a sub-tenant but a sheer trespasser. The question as to whether jawali was or was not in possession in Svt. 2003, 2004 and 2005 was not directly or substantially in issue and any observations made by the court on the point would not be considered to have been decided in that case. Hence the relief claimed in the present suit regarding correction of entries is not barred by Res-judicata and deserves to be decided on merits. Examining the evidence in this connection we find that the appellant had himself admitted in his application for re-instatement that Padma was a sub tenant. The oral evidence led by the respondent shows clearly that he had been cultivating this land since about three or four years prior to institution of this suit. Thus the plaintiff appellant failed to establish that the entries as they stand are wrong and need correction. On the other hand they have been proved to be in accordance with the factum of possession. The result is that the appeal fails and is rejected.;