Shashibushan Prasad Misilra &amp; Anr Vs. Babuji Rai &amp; Ors
guardians cost for respondent No. 23 (deity) failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed against him without further reference to a Bench." This peremptory order was not complied with and on the expiry of the two weeks the appeal stood dismissed against the deity. At the hearing of the appeal the contesting defendants urged that the entire appeal became incompetent in view of the dismissal of the appeal against the deity. The High Court accepted this contention and dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The High Court held that there was a clear issue between defendant No. 18 and the contesting defendants as to whether the lands formed part of the village Siripur Majrahia, that the issue stood concluded against defendant No. 18 by the decree of the Trial Court, that the appeal had abated against defendant No. 18 and that as success in the appeal might lead to conflicting and inconsistent decrees, the appeal against all the defendants became incompetent. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs after obtaining a certificate from the High Court. 2. Clearly, the High Court was in error in holding that the appeal had abated either wholly or in part. None of the parties to the appeal had died and there was no question of the abatement of the appeal. Mr. C. B. Agarwala relying on the case of Munni Bibi v. Trilokinath, 58 Ind App 158 = (AIR 1931 PC 114 ) submitted that the decision of the Trial Court on the question whether the suit lands appertainted to village Siripur Majrahia operated as res judicata between the deity and the contesting co-defendants,that the appellate court could not record an inconsistent finding that the suit lands appertained to village Siripur Majrahia, and that in the circumstances, the entire appeal before the High Court became incompetent. We are unable to accept these contentions. 3. The plaintiffs claiming as tenants of the deity sued the contesting defendants for declaration of their title and possession in respect of the suit lands on the allegation that the lands appertained to village Siripur Majrahia of which the deity was the proprietor. The deity was not a necessary party to the suit. It was joined as a defendant, but no relief was claimed against it.The suit was dismissed on the finding that the suit land did not appertain to village Siripur Majrahia. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the decree impleading the deity as one of the respondents. The appeal was dismissed against the deity for non-payment of costs of its guardian ad litem. The deity was not a necessary party to the appeal. The plaintiffs were entitled to prosecute their appeal against the contesting defendants in the absence of the deity. 4. As soon as the appeal was filed by the plaintiffs in the High Court the decision of the Trial Court lost its character of finality and the question whether the suit lands appertained to village Siripur Majrahia became once again res sub judice. The case of 58 Ind App 158 = (AIR 1931 PC 114 ) (supra) shows that a decision operates as res judicata between co-defendants if (1) there is a conflict of interest between them; (2) it is necessary to decide that conflict in order to give the plaintiffs the reliefs which they claim and (3) the question between the co-defendants is finally decided. In the present case, the third condition was not satisfied. The question whether the suit lands appertain to Siripur Majrahia was not finally decided between the deity and the co-defendants. On the filing of the appeal by plaintiffs, the question became once more the subject of judicial inquiry between the deity and the contesting defendants. 5. Before the appeal was finally heard and decided, it was dismissed as against the deity for non-payment of its guardians costs. The Appellate Court did not give any decision on the merits of the case in the presence of the deity. There is no final decision against the deity on the question of the title to the suit lands. The decision of the Appellate Court against the contesting defendants will not lead to conflicting and inconsistent decree. The High Court was in error in holding that the appeal against the contesting defendants became incompetent. 6. In the circumstances the High Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on the merits. Counsel for the parties agreed that the decision of the present appeal on the merits would abide by the decision in C. A. No. 140 of 1966 arising out of T. S. No. 29/11 of 1946. That suit and T. S./ No. 12/9 of 1946 out of which the present appeal arises were heard together by the Trial Court and disposed of by a common judgment. In C. A. No. 140 to 1966 we have held that the disputed lands appertained originally to village Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur, that due to the recession of the river Karey the lands reformed in situ and that the property in the lands continued to remain with the proprietors of the lands in villages Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the deity Shri Radha Krishnaji Baldeoji came into possession of the disputed land as alleged in the plaint. There was no issue on the question whether the deity had acquired title to the suit lands by adverse possession. The plea for the acquisition of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The plaintiffs failed to establish acquisition of the title of the deity to any portion of the suit lands by adverse possession. It follows that there was no merit in F. A. No. 235 of 1951. Although the High Court did not decide this appeal on the merits, it is not necessary to remand the matter to the High Court.Having regard to our findings in C. A. No. 140 of 1966, T. S. No. 12/9 of 1946 also must be dismissed.
0[ds]6. In the circumstances the High Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on the merits. Counsel for the parties agreed that the decision of the present appeal on the merits would abide by the decision in C. A. No. 140 of 1966 arising out of T. S. No. 29/11 of 1946. That suit and T. S./ No. 12/9 of 1946 out of which the present appeal arises were heard together by the Trial Court and disposed of by a common judgment. In C. A. No. 140 to 1966 we have held that the disputed lands appertained originally to village Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur, that due to the recession of the river Karey the lands reformed in situ and that the property in the lands continued to remain with the proprietors of the lands in villages Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the deity Shri Radha Krishnaji Baldeoji came into possession of the disputed land as alleged in the plaint. There was no issue on the question whether the deity had acquired title to the suit lands by adverse possession. The plea for the acquisition of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The plaintiffs failed to establish acquisition of the title of the deity to any portion of the suit lands by adverse possession. It follows that there was no merit in F. A. No. 235 of 1951. Although the High Court did not decide this appeal on the merits, it is not necessary to remand the matter to the High Court.Having regard to our findings in C. A. No. 140 of 1966, T. S. No. 12/9 of 1946 also must be dismissed.
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
guardians cost for respondent No. 23 (deity) failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed against him without further reference to a Bench." This peremptory order was not complied with and on the expiry of the two weeks the appeal stood dismissed against the deity. At the hearing of the appeal the contesting defendants urged that the entire appeal became incompetent in view of the dismissal of the appeal against the deity. The High Court accepted this contention and dismissed the appeal in its entirety. The High Court held that there was a clear issue between defendant No. 18 and the contesting defendants as to whether the lands formed part of the village Siripur Majrahia, that the issue stood concluded against defendant No. 18 by the decree of the Trial Court, that the appeal had abated against defendant No. 18 and that as success in the appeal might lead to conflicting and inconsistent decrees, the appeal against all the defendants became incompetent. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs after obtaining a certificate from the High Court. 2. Clearly, the High Court was in error in holding that the appeal had abated either wholly or in part. None of the parties to the appeal had died and there was no question of the abatement of the appeal. Mr. C. B. Agarwala relying on the case of Munni Bibi v. Trilokinath, 58 Ind App 158 = (AIR 1931 PC 114 ) submitted that the decision of the Trial Court on the question whether the suit lands appertainted to village Siripur Majrahia operated as res judicata between the deity and the contesting co-defendants,that the appellate court could not record an inconsistent finding that the suit lands appertained to village Siripur Majrahia, and that in the circumstances, the entire appeal before the High Court became incompetent. We are unable to accept these contentions. 3. The plaintiffs claiming as tenants of the deity sued the contesting defendants for declaration of their title and possession in respect of the suit lands on the allegation that the lands appertained to village Siripur Majrahia of which the deity was the proprietor. The deity was not a necessary party to the suit. It was joined as a defendant, but no relief was claimed against it.The suit was dismissed on the finding that the suit land did not appertain to village Siripur Majrahia. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the decree impleading the deity as one of the respondents. The appeal was dismissed against the deity for non-payment of costs of its guardian ad litem. The deity was not a necessary party to the appeal. The plaintiffs were entitled to prosecute their appeal against the contesting defendants in the absence of the deity. 4. As soon as the appeal was filed by the plaintiffs in the High Court the decision of the Trial Court lost its character of finality and the question whether the suit lands appertained to village Siripur Majrahia became once again res sub judice. The case of 58 Ind App 158 = (AIR 1931 PC 114 ) (supra) shows that a decision operates as res judicata between co-defendants if (1) there is a conflict of interest between them; (2) it is necessary to decide that conflict in order to give the plaintiffs the reliefs which they claim and (3) the question between the co-defendants is finally decided. In the present case, the third condition was not satisfied. The question whether the suit lands appertain to Siripur Majrahia was not finally decided between the deity and the co-defendants. On the filing of the appeal by plaintiffs, the question became once more the subject of judicial inquiry between the deity and the contesting defendants. 5. Before the appeal was finally heard and decided, it was dismissed as against the deity for non-payment of its guardians costs. The Appellate Court did not give any decision on the merits of the case in the presence of the deity. There is no final decision against the deity on the question of the title to the suit lands. The decision of the Appellate Court against the contesting defendants will not lead to conflicting and inconsistent decree. The High Court was in error in holding that the appeal against the contesting defendants became incompetent. 6. In the circumstances the High Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on the merits. Counsel for the parties agreed that the decision of the present appeal on the merits would abide by the decision in C. A. No. 140 of 1966 arising out of T. S. No. 29/11 of 1946. That suit and T. S./ No. 12/9 of 1946 out of which the present appeal arises were heard together by the Trial Court and disposed of by a common judgment. In C. A. No. 140 to 1966 we have held that the disputed lands appertained originally to village Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur, that due to the recession of the river Karey the lands reformed in situ and that the property in the lands continued to remain with the proprietors of the lands in villages Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the deity Shri Radha Krishnaji Baldeoji came into possession of the disputed land as alleged in the plaint. There was no issue on the question whether the deity had acquired title to the suit lands by adverse possession. The plea for the acquisition of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The plaintiffs failed to establish acquisition of the title of the deity to any portion of the suit lands by adverse possession. It follows that there was no merit in F. A. No. 235 of 1951. Although the High Court did not decide this appeal on the merits, it is not necessary to remand the matter to the High Court.Having regard to our findings in C. A. No. 140 of 1966, T. S. No. 12/9 of 1946 also must be dismissed.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
6. In the circumstances the High Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on the merits. Counsel for the parties agreed that the decision of the present appeal on the merits would abide by the decision in C. A. No. 140 of 1966 arising out of T. S. No. 29/11 of 1946. That suit and T. S./ No. 12/9 of 1946 out of which the present appeal arises were heard together by the Trial Court and disposed of by a common judgment. In C. A. No. 140 to 1966 we have held that the disputed lands appertained originally to village Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur, that due to the recession of the river Karey the lands reformed in situ and that the property in the lands continued to remain with the proprietors of the lands in villages Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the deity Shri Radha Krishnaji Baldeoji came into possession of the disputed land as alleged in the plaint. There was no issue on the question whether the deity had acquired title to the suit lands by adverse possession. The plea for the acquisition of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. The plaintiffs failed to establish acquisition of the title of the deity to any portion of the suit lands by adverse possession. It follows that there was no merit in F. A. No. 235 of 1951. Although the High Court did not decide this appeal on the merits, it is not necessary to remand the matter to the High Court.Having regard to our findings in C. A. No. 140 of 1966, T. S. No. 12/9 of 1946 also must be dismissed.
