Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel representing the counsel for the appellants contends that both the courts below have misapplied the principles of res judicata without considering the voluminous evidence placed by the plaintiff to support the title to the property. According to him, the enquiry under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act is of a limited nature and any decision with regard to title therein will not operate as res judicata. In this connection, it is to be noted that by virtue of the amendment of Civil Procedure Code in 1976, as per the explanation (8) of Section.11 the issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction shall also operate as res judicata. Evidently, the claim before the Land Acquisition Officer is based on the same facts of title acquired by the plaintiff. The court has framed necessary issues and decided the title which was a point of controversy between the parties. When the part of the suit land was held to be the land belonging to the third defendant and when such finding has become final as rightly held by the courts below, no further decision contrary to the earlier finding can be undertaken. Even otherwise, the records filed by the defendants shows that the land is inam land and evidently it was meant for the deity. The pleadings on the part of the plaintiffs is also not clear as to when imams were abolished and when Nuzivid is zamindar village whether the partition between the vendor of the plaintiffs’ father and other brothers relate to the family land. Further more, after the abolition of the imams also, the plaintiffs have not obtained any patta from the Settlement Officer. There is nothing on record to show that a personal grant given to any person for the services to be rendered or if any other purpose is alienable though it may be inheritable. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, when part of the land is found to be the land belonging to the deity, there cannot be any contrary view to be taken. The contention of the counsel for the appellants cannot be entertained in view of the settled proposition of land and also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair ([1] ) .
