Surinder Sarup, J.@mdashThis second appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff-Appellant. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is that of Shri Jeneshwar Goel, the then Additional District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti at Mandi, dated 22-8-1988 and that of the trial Court is by Shri D.D. Sharma, the then Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sundernagar, dated 28-6-1984.
2. The suit was filed for joint possession of the suit land on the pleadings that the same was jointly owned by the parties since their forefathers in which Panjaku Ram the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff and Respondent No. 11 had half share. It was also pleaded that the Defendants No. 1 to 10 were in possession of the same. However, they did not allow the Plaintiff to enter in the land on 1-2-1980. Hence, the present suit was filed.
3. In the written statement, Respondents/Defendants No. 1 to 10 admitted that the suit land along with the other land was jointly owned previously. It was alleged that in a private partition between the parties, the suit land fell to the share of the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants-Respondents No. 1 to 10 and they have been coming into possession as exclusive owners of the suit land. It was also pleaded that a similar suit was previously filed for joint possession of the suit land by Panjaku against the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents No. 1 to 10. That suit was dismissed by the learned sub-judge, Sundernagar in the year 1958. No appeal having been filed, the judgment and decree of that suit became final. Hence, the present suit was barred by the principles of res judicata.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the Plaintiffs are joint owners of the suit land with Defendants? ...O.P.P.
(2) Whether the suit is within time? ...O.P.P.
(3) Whether the suit is barred under the principles of res judicata, as alleged? ... O.P.D.
(4) Relief.
5. Issue No. (2) was decided in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant holding that the suit was within time. The findings under issues No. 1 and 3 were recorded against the Plaintiff resulting in dismissal of the suit.
6. The appeal after having met with the same fate has given rise to the present second appeal.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and I have also examined the record.
8. It is amply proved on record that previously the suit had been filed by Panjaku against the predecessor-in-interest of the present Plaintiff-Appellant regarding the same suit land and on the same cause of action with the same prayer. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court and no appeal was filed. The said judgment and decree became final inter parties. That obviously bars the present suit u/s 11 of the CPC on the principles of res judicata.
9. Briefly, the evidence in this case may be referred to. The copies of the judgment of the Sub-Judge, Sundernagar dated 29-7-1958 is Ex. D-C in civil suit No. 165 and in civil suit No. 166, it is Ex. D-F. The copies of the plaints are Ex. D-A and D-D and the copies of the written statements are Ex. D-B and D-E respectively.
10. The only point submitted by Shri Yoginder Paul, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Plaintiff is that the copies of the plaint in the previous suit and that of the written statement have not been proved in accordance with law. This aspect of the case been considered by the learned first appellate Court to the effect that these documents have been filed and tendered into evidence only to specify the details of the land involved in civil suit Nos. 165 and 166 between the parties. Moreover, if this argument is accepted on its face value, it is merely an irregularity and not an illegality which would vitiate the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 99 of the CPC which provides that no decree is to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case, neither the merits are being affected because of the non-production of the documents to be proved in accordance with law, nor the jurisdiction of the Court to hold the suit as being barred by the principles of res judicata is affected. That being so, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below cannot be setaside merely on this ground.
11. No other point has been urged nor any arises.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
