Does a finding of title by adverse possession in an earlier suit apply to the same property where only the described extent differs?

Paragraph 19However, after full trial, the Trial Court therein dismissed the Suit holding that the first defendant had perfected title by way of adverse possession and consequently, the plaintiffs therein are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for, vide Ex-B.4 - Judgment. The said verdict was confirmed upto the level of the High Court. This Court vide its Judgment dated March 18, 2026 passed in S.A. No.550 of 2002, has not only confirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court therein, but has also went on to record a specific finding that the first defendant herein had perfected title by way of adverse possession over the suit property and became its absolute owner. Hence, Substantial Questions of Law (3) pales into insignificance. As stated supra, the suit property herein and therein are pretty much one and the same. Their identity, lie and location are all the same. The only difference is the extent. In the said earlier Suit, the suit property has been described as measuring east-west 65 feet x north-south 42 feet while in this case, it has been described as measuring 60 feet x 60 feet. That alone, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would not stand as a hurdle in applying the first defendant herein's title by adverse possession declared in the earlier Suit proceedings, to the present suit property. From the above, it is clear that the suit property is owned by the first defendant herein.