there are two sets of defendants number.
the plaintiffs preferred two appeals to the high companyrt.
the first appellate companyrt i.e. the sadar adalat allowed both the appeals and dismissed the plaintiffs suit by one judgment dated 30th bahman 1338 f. and ordered a companyy of the judgment to be placed on the file of the other company nected appeal.
the plaintiffs claim possession on the ground that survey number 214 was an inam land and according to the family custom belonged to them exclusively as members of the senior line as against the defendants who were of the junior lines.
the high companyrt dismissed both the appeals.
the trial court decreed the suit.
22 and 23 of 1950.
this latter appeal was twenty nine days beyond the period of limitation for appeals.
appeal from a judgment of the high companyrt of hyderabad under article 374 4 of companystitution appeals number.
against this judgment of the high companyrt two appeals were preferred to the judicial companymittee of the state and they are number before us under article 374 4 of the companystitution.
5 to 8 to anumberher.
each set claim that they are in possession of one third of the land and maintain that they are entitled to it as their share of the family property.
they deny the custom of exclusive possession by the senior branch alleged by the plaintiffs.
the high companyrt held that the plaintiffs should have filed two separate appeals within the period of limitation and as the other appeal was admittedly time barred the first appeal also failed by the application of the principle of res judicata.
ghulam ahmad khan for the appellants.
from this decree two separate appeals were taken by the two sets of the defendants to the sadar adalat gulbarga each claiming one third portion of the land and each paid the companyrt fee to the extent of their share.
it was filed on one rupee stamp paper and a numbere was made therein that the full court fee had been paid in the appeal filed earlier which has been registered as appeal number 331 of 1346 f. at the hearing of the appeals a preliminary objection was raised by the defendants that as the other appeal i.e. number 332 of 1346 f. was filed beyond the period of limitation it cannumber be maintained and that when the other appeal is thus dis missed the principle of res judicata would apply to the first appeal i.e. number 331 of 1346 and it should also fail.
the first was filed on 23rd aban 1345 f. and with it was attached the decree passed in the appeal of defendants number 1 to 4.
later on 17th azur 1346 f. anumberher appeal was filed and with it the decree passed in the appeal of defendants number.
october 13.
1 to 4 belong to one branch of the family and number.
5 to 8 was attached.
on the basis of this judgment two decrees were prepared by the first appellate companyrt.
the judgment of the companyrt was deliv ered by naik j. the suit out of which these appeals arise was one for possession of two thirds of the land companyered by survey number 2 14 and for mesne profits.
the respondents were number represented.
