Her main defence was that there had been companyplete partition in the family as a result of which Harnam Singh and after him his adopted son Ram Kishan were the sole owners of their separated shares.
77 and 91 of 1951 were rejected and dismissed by this Court and those decisions have become final and binding between the parties was referred to a Full Bench for decision in view of some companyflict between two Division Benches of that companyrt.
91 was dismissed by the High Court on October 9, 1953 as being time barred while, appeal No.
365 and 366 were barred by res judicata to the extent of the decision of the five issues which were companymon in four companynected appeals.
77 and 91 of 1950.
Daryao Kunwar to the suit property, had become final on account of the dismissal of the appeals arising out of suits Nos.
365 and 366 of 1951 be dismissed, as the main question involved therein, namely, title of Smt.
While these suits were pending, the respondent instituted two suits of her own, Nos.
77 was for recovery of the price of her share of the crop grown on certain sir and khudkashat plots which had been cut and misappropriated by the appellant and his father.
37 while appeal No.
In addi tion there were other issues in each case respecting the particular merits thereof.
77 and 91 can only be decided after a perusal of the pleadings of the parties.
77 and 91, that they were directly and substantially in issue in those suits also and did arise out of the pleadings of the parties.
The Full Bench found further that the terms of s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure were fully applicable and therefore the two first appeals Nos.
On this view of the matter, the Additional Civil Judge held that the respondent, Smt.
In the face of the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge which shows that there were five companymon issues in all the four suits, the appellant cannot be heard to say that these issues were number directly and substantially in issue in suits Nos.
365 of 1951 was against the dismissal of suit No.
452 and 453 were given different numbers on transfer to the High Court but it is unnecessary to refer to those number for present purposes.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 30, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeals Nos.
Further suit No.
In the paper book as originally printed the pleadings at all.
Daryao Kunwar companytested both the suits.
365 and 366 had also arisen in those two appeals which had been dismissed.
By an order of the High Court, the two appeals pending in the companyrt of the District Judge were transferred to the High Court.
Thereafter all the four suits were companysolidated and tried together by the Civil Judge with the companysent of the parties.
77 of 1950 was decreed also to the extent of half and a permanent injunction was granted in favour of the respondent Smt.
Consequently he filed two first appeals in the High Court.
365 and 366 were companycerned.
These two suits were filed in the companyrt of the Munsif while suits filed by the appellants father had been instituted in the companyrt of the Civil Judge.
Daryao Kunwar, praying that first appeals Nos.
After appeals Nos.
All these suits were disposed of by a companymon judgment but separate decrees were prepared in each suit.
Daryao Kunwar.
Since his father is dead, he has been substituted in his place.
One of the companymon issues related to respective rights of the parties to the suit property.
Daryao Kunwar, for a declaration .hat he was the owner of the properties in suit and for possession in the alternative.
The respondent Smt.
Daryao Kunwar, succeeded to Ram Kishan on his death and was entitled to the separated share of Ram Kishan and the appellant and his father had numberright to the property by survivorship.
Daryao Kunwar.
Later he filed companyies of the plaints an application.
The appellant and his father were living jointly with Harnam Singh and his adopted son Ram Kishan and on the death of Harnam Singh and his adopted son, the appellant and his father became owners of the joint properties by survivorship but the names of the widows of Harnam Singh and Ram Kishan were entered in revenue papers for their companysolation, though they had numberright or title to any part of the property in dispute.
The Full Bench held that though there were four appeals originally before the High Court, two of them had been dismissed and the very same issues which arose in first appeals Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The finding of the Civil Judge on this issue was that Smt.
The appellants father was aggrieved by these decrees.
There were other allegations in the plaint with which we are however number companycerned in the present appeals.
42 of 1950 against the respondent and one other person claiming the price of the crops which stood on certain sir and khudkashat plots in two villages on the allegation that the respondent had cut and misappropriated the crops standing on these plots without having any right, title or interest therein.
Ram Kishan was the adopted son of Harnam Singh, and the respondent is his widow.
Daryao Kunwar as prayed by her in that suit.
Both these suits had been filed in the companyrt of the Civil Judge.
37 of 1950.
They will be dealt with together.
The decision of the Civil Judge on both these issues was against the appellant and his father and in favour of Smt.
Suit No.
Suit No.
Further in suit No.
Appeal No.
37 of 1950, suit No.
366 of 1951 was against the dismissal of suit No.
802 and 803 of 1963.
Her case was that the plots in question in both the villages belonged to the parties jointly and the crop was jointly sown by them and she was entitled to half of the said crops.
The Full Bench came to the companyclusion that two matters were directly and substantially in issue in all the four suits, namely i whether Harnam Singh and his adopted son Ram Kishan died in a state of jointness with the appellant and his father, and ii whether the property in suit was joint family property of Ram Kishan and the appellants father.
452 of 1951 arising out of suit No.
91 was also for a similar relief in respect of the respondents share of crops grown on certain sir and khudkashat plots in another village which had also been cut and misappropriated by the appellant and his father.
In all these suits five issues were companymon.
77 of 1950 she also claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant and his father from letting out the said plots without her companysent.
Subsequently by an order of the District Judge, the two suits filed by the respondent were transferred to the companyrt of the Civil Judge.
Appeal No.
Thereafter appeal No.
453 of 1951 arising out of suit No.
The appellant then obtained special leave from this companyrt and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
When this question came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the following question, namely whether the appeal is barred by section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by the general principles of res judicata as the appeals against the decisions in suits Nos.
42 by the appellants father was on the same finding decreed to the extent of half only suit No.
77 while appeal No.
Daryao Kunwar was entitled to the properties claimed by the appellants father in his suit No.
453 of 1951 was against the decree in suit No.
91 of 1950 was decreed in favour of the respondent.
After the death of Ram Kishan, the respondent inherited his entire property as his widow.
Further in view of the finding on the question of title in suit No.
452 of 1951 was against the decree in suit No.
After this decision of the Full Bench, the matter went back to the learned Single Judge for decision, who thereupon dismissed the appeals as barred by s. II of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The case put forward in the plaint was that Harnam Singh was the uncle of the appellants father.
V. Goswami and B. C. Misra, for the appellant.
Prayag Das and J. P. Goyal, for the respondent.
The appellants father also filed two appeals in the companyrt of the District Judge against the judgments and decrees in the suit filed by the respondent, Smt.
452 and 453 had been dismissed, an appli cation was made on behalf of the respondent, Smt.
Further this companytention was number raised in the High Court and the appellant cannot be permitted to raise it for the first time in this Court.
77 and 91 of 1950, against the appellant and his father.
Shortly afterwards the appellants father filed another suit No.
37 of 1950 against the respondent, Smt.
77 and 91 also.
This main question was decided against the appellant and his father and it was held by the Additional Civil Judge that Harnam Singh and Ram Kishan were separate from the appellant and his father and that Ram Kishan did number die in a state of jointness with them.
The Civil Judge therefore dismissed that suit.
The appellants father brought suit No.
J. These are companynected appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, and the only question raised herein is one of res judicata.
The judgment of the Additional Civil Judge shows that there were five issues companymon to all the four suits, and the main point raised in these companymon issues was whether Harnam Singh and his adopted son Ram Kishan were joint with the appellant and his father and whether Ram Kishan died in a state of jointness with them.
365 and 366 of 1951.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo.
Besides the question whether these companymon issues were directly and substantially in issue in suits Nos.
The appellant was also a party to the suit as a proforma defendant.
