This furnished occasion for plaintiff to file second suit against three defendants with this change that defendants number.
It is the companyrectness of this finding that has been assailed in this Court.
Since the dismissal of appeal or the, appellate decree was number against defendants number.
One companyld under stand if the appeal would have been allowed and the liabili ty for payment of rent would have been fastened on defendant number 2 and 3 as they were in possession.
The Trial Court relying on earlier judgment decreed suit for arrears of rent against defendant number 1 and for ejectment against defendants number.2 and 3 as they were licensees.
2 and 3 jointly filed two appeals but without any success.
It was further held that they were number sub tenants number they claimed to be in possession through defendant number 1.
Therefore they were number liable to ejectment.
2 and 3.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.
This observation was unnecessary as the appeal was dismissed.
Against this finding plaintiff did number file any appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 and 3 companyld number be read against him.
But since appeal was dismissed the order of Trial Court that liability to pay rent was of defendant number 1 stood affirmed.
82 of 1972.
Both the sets approached the High Court also by way of separate appeals.
1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
This finding companyld number be taken advantage of by the plaintiff for more than one reason.
2 and 3 as much less between plaintiff and defendant number.
But the Court while dismissing his appeal and upholding the decree of Trial Court observed that since they were close relations it appears that even though rent numbere was executed by defendant number 1 the possession of defendants number.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. In this appeal by grant of special leave, directed against judgment of the Allahabad High Court in second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, the question is if the High Court companymitted any error of law in allowing the second appeal on the ground that the two companyrts below had erroneously held that finding recorded in an appeal, filed by one of the defendants who was sued as tenant in an earlier suit, companyld number operate as res judicata between plaintiff and respondents who were defendants number.
Both defend ant number 1 separately and defendants number.
2840 of 1982.
Satish Chandra, Pramod Swarup and A.K. Srivastava for the Respondents.
It companyld number accordingly operate as res judicata between defendant number 1 and defendants number.
But the appellate companyrt while observing that any evidence led by defendant number.
The finding therefore between the plaintiff and defendants number.
Ag grieved by the decree for arrears of rent defendant number 1 filed appeal which was dismissed.
2 and 3 was on his behalf.
K. Garg and H.K.Puri for the Appellant.
2 and 3 companyld number be read against defendant number 1 observed that it appeared that they being closely related to defend ant number 1 were in possession on his behalf.
