RISAL SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed property known as the Landhaura Estate. One Raghubir Singh was the last owner. He died leaving a widow. Rani Dharam Kunwar, who gave birth to a posthumous son named Jagat Prakash Singh. This boy died shortly after his birth and the Rani purported to adopt a number of boys, one after the other, all of whom died in infancy. Finally she is alleged to have adopted the defendant, Balwant Singh. The Rani died on the 12th of November 1912 and the plaintiff No. 1 claims to be the reversioner and entitled to the estate on the death of the Rani. The second plaintiff is an assignee of a portion of the estate from plaintiff No. 1 and is probably th3 financier of the present litigation.

(2.) The allegation of the plaintiffs is that Raghubir Singh never gave authority to his widow to adopt a son. The Court below has dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that a previous litigation between Rani Dharam Kunwar and Balwant Singh operates as res judicata. The Court did not receive any evidence on the question whether or not the plaintiff No. 1 is what he claims to be, namely, the reversioner and heir to the property, nor on the question whether or not the Rani was authorised by her husband to adopt. The sole question which we have to decide in the present appeal is whether the previous litigation operates as res judicata.

(3.) It seems to me that we are bound to deal with the appeal on the assumption that the plaintiffs might possibly have been able to adduce evidence which would satisfy the Court, first, that the plaintiff No. 1 is the reversioner and second, that Raghubir Singh never authorised his wife to adopt a son. If the Court below was correct in holding that the previous litigation operated as res judicata, it was quite unnecessary to go into the evidence on either of these two points. If, on the other hand, the previous litigation does not operate as res judicata, then clearly the Court ought to have heard the evidence and it is our duty to remand the case for that purpose.