LAL BEHARI Vs. MUSAMMAT PARKALLI KOER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by one Sitlu Rai for establishment of his right to and possession of certain immoveable property consisting of shares in 16 villages, on the allegation that he was the reversioner of the last male owner of that property and that Musammat Parkali Kuar, the principal defendant, had no interest in that, property. The lower Appellate Court found the facts in favour of the plaintiff and decreed his claim in respect of three villages. As regards the remaining villages that Court dismissed the claim on the ground that in its opinion Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred it.

(2.) The way in which the section was applied to the case was this: The name of the defendant Musammat Parkali had been entered in the revenue papers along with the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the Musammat jointly applied for partition of the villages in respect of which the claim has been dismissed and the shares recorded in their names were formed into a separate Mahal, The Court below has held that, as both of them had applied for partition and obtained partition, the matter became res judicata in consequence of the order for partition passed by the Revenue Court. This decision of the lower Appellate Court was affirmed by a learned Judge of this Court in second appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal Sitlu Rai died. A question was raised before us as to whether the present appellants were the legal representatives of Sitlu Rai and were entitled to maintain the appeal. An issue was referred to the Court below on the point and it has been found that they are the legal representatives of Saitlu Rai. This finding has not been questioned.