NALINI KANTA LAHIRI Vs. SARNAMOYI DEBYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the original plaintiff (now represented by the appellants) was one of the co-sharers of a putni-talook. In past times, others of the co-sharers have been desirous to have their shares partitioned out to them, and accordingly brought suits for that purpose. To every one of those numerous suits the appellant was a party, and the object of each of those suits was to have the share of the plaintiff in the suit partitioned out by metes and bounds. Those suits have gone on until every co-sharer other than the plaintiff has had his share thus partitioned out, so that the plaintiff was left with the remainder as representing his share. In this suit he alleged that this remainder was insufficient to represent his share of the original putni-talook. It is evident that on examination of the claims of previous plaintiffs, he had convinced himself, and, so far as their Lordships know, convinced himself correctly, that in two cases the shares ascribed to other co- sharers were larger than those to which they were entitled, and that, accordingly, the partition gave. them a larger share of the property than it ought to have done.

(2.) It is immaterial, in the opinion of their Lordships, whether this view which is put forward by the plaintiff in his plaint is correct or not, but their Lordships will assume for the purpose of this judgment that it is correct. The object of the present suit is to correct the apportionment to those of the previous plaintiffs, or co-sharers, who received more than their proper share so that the remainder will properly represent the plaintiff s share.

(3.) The Courts below have held that this suit cannot be sustained both on the ground of res judicata and on the ground of limitation. Their Lordships do not find it necessary to deal with the question of limitation which was dealt with by both the Courts below, because they are of opinion that the plea of res judicata is a sufficient answer to the suit.