Res judicata bars suits on previously adjudicated causes of action, precluding interference under Section 100 CPC.

The Appellant (son of the original plaintiff, Sidhwa Ram) filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction regarding 0.04 acres of land under Khasra No. 255/2

The Plaintiff claimed title via a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1965 from Chitrautin Bai and alleged that the Defendant fraudulently mutated the land in 1980 by falsely declaring the Plaintiff dead

The Defendant contested, asserting he purchased Khasra No. 255 from the same owner in 1963, remained in continuous possession, and that the suit was barred by res judicata due to the dismissal of a previous suit (Civil Suit No. 11-A/1990) between the same parties

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims, leading to this Second Appeal

Whether the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata in light of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 11-A/1990

Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were perverse or involved a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the CPC

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits the scope of a Second Appeal to "substantial questions of law" and restricts interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse

principle of res judicata, which precludes parties from litigating issues already adjudicated by a competent court

precedent set in State of Rajasthan and others v. Shiv Dayal and another (2019) 8 SCC 637, which establishes that concurrent findings can only be assailed if they are recorded de hors the pleadings, based on misreading of evidence, or are judicial conclusions no reasonable judge could reach

The Court observed that the Defendant successfully produced Exhibit D-1, a certified copy of a 1997 judgment dismissing a previous suit (No. 11-A/1990) filed by the same Plaintiff against the same Defendant for the same cause of action

the Court found the current suit legally barred by res judicata

the Plaintiff failed to provide any explanation as to how Khasra No. 255 was converted to 255/2 in the records and failed to prove the allegations of fraud or collusion with revenue officials

the Court determined that the Appellant's arguments related entirely to the re-appreciation of evidence rather than any substantial question of law

Since the lower courts' findings were supported by the record and not perverse, the High Court held there was no jurisdictional ground to interfere

The Court concluded that no substantial question of law was involved, as the challenges raised were essentially questions of fact already decided concurrently by the subordinate courts

The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were upheld