The whole question which is to be decided in this case is whether the adjustment pleaded by the defendants is true or not? In fact, an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that for the legal notice, a reply was given by the plaintiff and in that an adjustment was pleaded and as per that adjustment after adjusting the rent, a sum of Rs.6,000/- has to go in discharge of the principal amount if the rent is taken as Rs.2,500/- and consequently, the courts below should not have discarded the claim of the appellants with regard to the adjustment. It is to be noted, if an adjustment is to be taken, it has to be taken totally and the appellants cannot take part of the adjustment in their favour and ignore the part of the adjustment which is against the appellants. If the notice issued by the plaintiff is to be taken into consideration, the rent shall be taken as Rs.2,500/- and consequently, the decree in mortgage suit cannot be accepted. Consequently, if the rent of Rs.2,500/- as claimed on the basis of the legal notice is to be accepted, then the adjustment pleaded by the appellants in the mortgage suit also cannot be taken into consideration. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that this suit has been decreed on 18.09.2008 without accepting the contention of the appellants; whereas the mortgage suit was decreed on 02.08.2010. It is well settled principle of res judicata when an issue has been in issue in both the suits and has to be decided, the judgment delivered in the earlier suit is binding on the parties and need not agitate again. Further more, merely because, the defendants themselves volunteer an arrangement, which is not proved, it cannot be taken as binding on the plaintiff. Further
