(9) So far the possession is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the Lower Appellate Court considered the admission of the plaintiff itself that he was not found in possession in the earlier suits filed by him. Therefore, this finding recorded in the earlier suit will be binding on the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court also observed that the plaintiff is in habit of filing the suits. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was with respect to a portion of the suit land is concerned, it may be mentioned here that this fact is being raised before this court for the first time. There is neither such pleading in the plaint nor such evidence nor there is any finding recorded by the trial court or Appellate Court nor it is mentioned in the memo of appeal. Now, therefore, merely on the submission of the learned counsel, at this stage, it cannot be said that the Title Suit No.140 of 1971 filed by the plaintiff related to only a part of the suit land and this suit relates to the whole of the ancestral land of the plaintiff.
