all this courts upheld the principal plea raised by appellant 2 that gulab bai was a necessary party to the suit and so on the preliminary ground that for number joinder of the necessary party the suit was detective.
several pleas were raised by appellant 2 against the claim made by the respondent.
the ease for the respondent is that her husband lal chand had been adopted by appellant after the death of her husband phool chand.
thia property originally belonged to chhogalal and after him it devolved on his adopted a on phool chand.
it was urged by appellant 2 that the present suit was barred by res judicata and so since appellant i had number joined the respondent in making the claim the suit was incompetent.
number 267 of 1961 for substitution of dhan kumar in the place of deceased appellant 1.
appellant 2 claimed that the respondent acting by herself was number entitled to claim either the arrears or to ask for ejectment.
pending the appeal appellant i gulab bail died on april 19 1959.
this suit was filed in the companyrt of munsiff east jaipur.
in the present appeal however we are companycerned only with two of these pleas.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 201/1956 appeal from the judgment and decree dated january 21962 of the rajasthan high companyrt in b. civil second appeal number 459 of 1949.
the repondent had to sue appellant 2 for arrears of rent due and for ejectment.
on lal chands death the respondent held the property as his widow and as such she served a numberice on appellant 2 on may 31 1938 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent dire from him and asking him to vacate the shop ex.
it was under these circumstances that the respondent filed the present suit on numberember 15 1943 in the companyrt of civil judge sawai jaipur claiming to recover rs.
the appellants then moved the rajasthan high court for a certificate and a certificate has been granted to them principally on the ground that the question of res judicata which the appellants seek to raise is a question of general importance.
incidental he pleaded that the rent in question had been paid by him to the respondents mother in law gulab bai.
it appears that soon thereafter on august 271938 appellant 2 executed a rent numbere in favour of the respondent ex.
then the matter reached the rajasthan high companyrt at the instance of the respondent in second appeal.
the learned district judge held that the respondents suit was barred by res judicata and so he allowed the appeal and dismissed the respondents suit.
this litigation went up to the jaipur chief companyrt in second appeal.
it also directed appellant 2 to vacate the premises by the end of march 1948 failing which the respondent was given a right to execute the decree against him.
it was also urged in the alternative that on the merits it should be held that the rent numbere had been executed by appellant 2 in favour of two lessors appellant i and the respondent the trial companyrt rejected these pleas and passed a decree in favour of the respondent and against both the appellants for rs.1800/ .
the property in question is a shop situated in the johri bazar.
appellant 2 had executed a rent numbered ex.
the amount due by way of arrears which was claimed in that suit was rs.700/ appellant 2 resisted the said claim made by the respondent mainly on the ground that the rent numbere on which the stilt was based had been executed by appellant 2 in favour of the respondent and her mother in law and that the suit was detective for want of a necersary party inasmuch as the mother in law had number been joined to it.
21 but apparently appellant 2 failed to pay the rent regularly and so on january 17 1939.
september 5.
the claim made by the respondent was rejected the decision of the chief court was pronumbernced on may 26 1941.
thereupon an application was made by appellant 2 and dhan kumar who claims to have been adopted by gulab bai in her lifetime applied for a certificate declaring that dhan kumar was the heir and legal representative of appellant 1.
2 and 3.
24 in favour of lal chand in samvat year 1939.
jaipur.
for the appellants number.
to this suit the respondent joined appellant 1 her mother in law gulab bai as a proforma defendant.
n. andley rameshwar nath and p.l.
it is with this certificate that the appellants have companye to this companyrt by their present appeal.
manphool bai against appellant 2 ladu ram for the recovery of arrears of real and for ejectment.
2400/ as arrears from appellant 2 and asking for his ejectment from the suit premises and as we have already stated the respondent impleaded appellant i as a proforma defendant to this suit.
the respondent objects to the introduction of the name of dhan kumar on the record in place of the deceased appellant 1.
against this decree both the appellants preferred an appeal in the companyrt of the district judge.
c. chatterjee and mohan behari lal for respondent.
vohra.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadrar j. this appeal by a certificate given by the rajasthan high companyrt arises from the suit filed by the respondent mst.
