Dismissal in default

Appellate court non-suited petitioners on the ground that petitioner had earlier filed a suit regarding residential property left by predecessor-in-interest of parties in which they had not included agricultural property which was subject matter of present suit; and petitioners had relinquished their right to the extent of said agricultural property under S.11 and O.II, R.2, C.P.C. and the same could not be agitated in the present suit

Pleas raised by petitioners were that the earlier suit had not been decided on merits and dismissed under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C., and in said suit parties had sought partition of the residential property on basis of family settlement, but in the present suit petitioners had challenged entries of inheritance mutation in revenue record

Validity

When earlier suit was filed, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was not owner of agricultural land for purpose of any further transaction and he became owner thereof by operation of law and was not entitled to make the agricultural land subject matter of the earlier suit unless revenue entries were corrected

Claim of petitioners in earlier suit was entirely different

Findings of appellate court were contrary to record and law and the same were not sustainable in law

Appellate court had wrongly held that principle of res judicata was applicable

In case of any dispute regarding residential property, jurisdiction was vested with civil court, whereas in case of agricultural land, parties approach the Revenue Courts/authorities, and the ground of relinquishment of claim had no force.