JUDGMENT

After hearing counsel for the appellants at some length as also counsel for the respondents for some time, we are satisfied that there is no substance in the appeal.

2. In our opinion, the High Court was right in taking the view that the present suit (out of which the appeal has arisen) filed by the appellants for a declaration that they were members of the larger joint Hindu family of Pannalal Girdharlal and as such were entitled to a share in the joint family business and the properties of such larger joint Hindu family was barred by res judicata by reason of the decisions in the earlier litigations between the parties and or their predecessors. It appears that in the year 1940-41 there was a general disruption in the larger joint Hindu family whereafter the erstwhile joint family business was carried on by five brothers as partners under the firm name and style of M/s. Pannalal Girdharlal. Since the appellant Jai Kishan Dass (son of Bal Kishan Dass being one of the five brothers) started interfering and intermeddling with the firms business, the partnership firm M/s. Pannalal Girdharlal filed Suit No. 338 of 1957 against the appellant for an injunction restraining him fr