Final findings on possession bind parties; the issue cannot be re-litigated in subsequent proceedings.

The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit land allotted to him in partition proceedings conducted by the Assistant Collector First Grade in 1989.

He alleged that, after an interim injunction was vacated on 06.04.2004, the defendant forcibly dispossessed him on 09.04.2004, and consequently sought possession of the land.

The defendant denied the plaintiff’s possession, contending that possession had never been delivered after partition and that he had acquired title by adverse possession.

The Trial Court held that the parties had been put in possession of their respective shares after partition, that the plaintiff had subsequently been dispossessed, and that the defendant failed to establish adverse possession.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree, relying, inter alia, on the findings in an earlier Regular Second Appeal between the same parties.

Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff’s suit was within limitation by ignoring the order of the Assistant Collector First Grade rejecting the application for delivery of possession?

Whether the Courts below acted illegally or perversely in holding the suit maintainable on the basis of alleged dispossession, despite the plaintiff’s failure to establish the actual date of delivery of possession pursuant to the partition proceedings?

Whether the finding in the earlier Regular Second Appeal that the parties had been put in possession of their respective shares after partition precluded the defendant from re-agitating that issue in the present proceedings?

The Court applied the doctrine of issue estoppel and res judicata, under which an issue of fact or law finally determined between the same parties by a competent court cannot be re-litigated in subsequent proceedings, even by adducing additional evidence.

It also applied the broader principle that re-litigation of an already decided issue may constitute an abuse of the process of court.

The Court relied on the earlier judgment in RSA No. 81 of 2002, which had held that the parties were owners in possession of the respective lands allotted to them after partition.

It further relied on Sharada Sanghi v. Asha Agarwal, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 480, and K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573, on abuse of process and impermissibility of re-litigation, as well as Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1218, on cause-of-action estoppel and issue estoppel.

Section 134 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, concerning delivery of possession through revenue authorities, was also considered.

The High Court held that the earlier decision in RSA No. 81 of 2002 had specifically determined that the parties were put in possession of their respective shares after partition.

That finding was not merely an incidental observation; it had been recorded while deciding substantial questions of law and was necessary for the disposal of the earlier appeal.

Accordingly, the defendant could not rely on the application under Section 134 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, or other evidence led in the present proceedings, to establish that possession had never been delivered.

Once prior possession pursuant to partition was accepted as conclusively determined, the plaintiff’s case that he was subsequently dispossessed was legally maintainable, and the concurrent factual findings of the Courts below did not disclose perversity.

The defendant also failed to prove adverse possession.

Consequently, the plea that the suit was time-barred or improperly instituted was rejected.

The Court held that the earlier judgment conclusively established delivery of possession after partition and that the defendant was barred from re-opening that issue.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover possession of the suit land, and the suit was not barred by limitation or rendered non-maintainable by the revenue remedy under Section 134 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act.

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below were affirmed.