Res judicata and limitation barred a later title suit after an earlier adverse adjudication had become final.

A substantial delay in refiling the second appeal was not condoned because the explanation for misplacing the paper book was found unsatisfactory. The later suit for declaration of ownership and possession was barred, as the plaintiffs' earlier challenge to title had already been finally rejected, so the same controversy could not be reopened. The claim was also hit by constructive res judicata because the joint Hindu family property plea could have been raised earlier, and the suit was treated as time-barred in view of the long lapse after the prior adjudication and the defendants' settled possession. The concurrent findings were upheld and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the long delay in refiling the second appeal could be condoned; (ii) Whether the plaintiffs' subsequent suit for declaration of ownership and possession was barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the long delay in refiling the second appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The refiling delay was substantial and the explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The explanation that the paper book had been misplaced in another brief and later traced was not accepted on the facts stated.

Conclusion: The delay in refiling was not condoned, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs' subsequent suit for declaration of ownership and possession was barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata and limitation.

Analysis: The plaintiffs' earlier challenge under Section 6 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920 had already been dismissed in appeal and had attained finality. Their claim to ownership over the suit land had been negatived earlier, and they could not reopen the same controversy by a later suit. The plea based on joint Hindu family property could also have been raised earlier, so the later suit was hit by constructive res judicata. The suit was also filed long after the earlier adjudication and after the defendants had been in possession for years, making the claim time-barred. The concurrent findings were additionally supported by the fact that the defendants had acquired title through the later sale deed and specific performance decree proceedings.

Conclusion: The suit was barred and the appellants were not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings against the plaintiffs were upheld, no substantial question of law arose, and the second appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A later suit cannot reopen a claim to title that has already been finally negatived between the parties, and matters that could have been raised in the earlier suit are barred by constructive res judicata.

---