23 in the appeal.
18 and the companytesting defendants as to whether the lands formed part of the village Siripur Majrahia, that the issue stood companycluded against defendant No.
It follows that there was numbermerit in F.A. No.
The question whether the suit lands appertain to Siripur Majrahia was number finally decided between the deity and the companydefendants.
The High Court held that there was a clear issue between defendant No.
235 of 1951.
The plaintiffs filed F.A. No.
The plaintiffs claimed that in companysequence of the changes in the channel of the river Karey the lands in suit were lost to villages Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur by diluvion and were annexed to plot No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 6, 1959 of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No.
The deity was number a necessary party to the appeal.
23 deity failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed against him without further reference to a Bench.
The case of Munni Bibi v. Trilokinath 1 shows that a decision operates as res ludicata between companydefendants if 1 there is a companyflict of interest between them 2 it is necessary to decide that companyflict in order to give the plaintiffs the reliefs which they claim and 3 the question between the companydefendants is finally decided.
18 and that as success in the appeal might lead to companyflicting and inconsistent decrees, the appeal against all the defendants became incompetent.
1083 in village Siripur Majrahia by gradual increment and accretioan.
The companytesting defendants were the landlords and tenants of villages Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur.
The suit was dismissed on a finding that the suit lands did number appertained to village Siripur Majrahia.
They obtained settlements of the lands from the deity Shri Radhakrishan Jee Baldeojee.
The deity was number a necessary party to the suit.
payment of companyts of its guardian ad litem.
The deity Shri Radha Krishanji Baldeoji, the original defendant No.
The river Karey flows between this village and the villages of Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
1083 in village Siripur Majrahia.
1083 and 1089 in village Sirlput Majrahia due to slow, gradual and imperceptible changes in the channel of the river Karey, 2 there was numbercustom in the village by which the disputed lands became the property of the owner of those plots, 3 the deity Radha Krishanji Baldeoji or the owner of village Siripur Majrahia did number obtain possession of the lands in the manner ,alleged in the plaint, 4 the lands originally belonged to the proprietors of villages Kazi Dumra and Shankarpur and companytinued to be their property and 5 the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession in respect of the suit lands within 12 years before the date of the institution of the suit.
At the hearing of the appeal the companytesting defendants urged that the entire appeal became incompetent in view of the dismissal of the appeal against the deity.
The appellate companyrt did number give any decision on the merits of the case in the presence of the deity.
The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs after obtaining a certificate from the High Court.
This peremptory order was number companyplied with and on the expiry of the two weeks the appeal stood dismissed against the deity.
18 was impleaded as respondent No.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the decree impleading the deity as one of the respondents.
The plaintiffs claiming as tenants of the deity sued the companytesting 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 High Court accepted this companytention and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
18 and was represented by one Tantreshwar Singh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the present case, the third companydition was number satisfied.
The High Court was in error in holding that the appeal against the companytesting defendants became incompetent.
291 of 1951 in the High Court of Patna against the decree passed by the Trial Court.
The deity was defendant No.
By an order dated January 24, 1952 the High Court appointed the Deputy Registrar as the guardian of the deity.
On the filing of the appeal by the plaintiffs, the question became once more subject of judicial inquiry between the deity and the companytesting defendants.
The plaintiffs were entitled to prosecute their appeal against the companytesting defendants in the absence of the deity.
There is numberfinal decision against the deity on the question of the title to the suit lands.
It was joined as a defendant, but numberrelief was claimed against it.
The appeal was dismissed against the deity for number 1 L.R. 58 I.A. 158.
It held that 1 the suit lands did number accrete to plots Nos.
The deity was the 16 annas proprietor of village Siripur Majrahia Pergana Jankhalpur, Tauzi No.
235 of 1951.
Sarjoo Prasad and B.P. Jha, for the appellants.
The decision of the appellate companyrt against the companytesting defendants will number lead to companyflicting and inconsistent decrees.
1110 of 1965.
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.
B. Agarwala, P.K. Chatterjee and R.B. Datar, for the respondents in Excepting respondents Nos.
In the circumstances the High Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on the merits.
The plaintiffs claimed declaration of their title and possession in respect of 70 bighas of land in plot No.
On February 18,.1952 the High Court passed the following order Two weeks further time is allowed to deposit D.R. guardians companyt for respondent No.
15 b to 15 d .
12/9 of 1946 instituted in the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal arises out of Title Suit No.
Before the appeal was finally heard and decided, it was dismissed as against the deity for number payment of its guardians companyts.
18 by the decree of the Trial Court, that the appeal had abated against defendant No.
