Judgement

TWO APPEALS DISPOSED OF BY COMMON JUDGMENT—ONE SECOND APPEAL LIES - two separate appeals by two sets of defendants — one appeal was time barred — held the high court ought not have dismissed the other appeal by applying principles of res judicata

-as held in Narhari v. Shanker, AIR. 1953 SC 419; Sheodan v. Daryao, A.I.R 1968 SC 1332.

NAIK, J. : The suit out of which these appeals arise was one for possession of two-thirds of the land covered by survey No. 214 and for mesne profits. The plaintiffs claim possession on the ground that survey No. 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. There are two sets of defendants; Nos. 1 to 4 belong to one branch of the family and Nos. 5 to 8 to another. Each set claim that they are in possession of onethird 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 trial court decreed the suit. From this decree, two separate appeals were taken by the two sets of the defendants to