Judgement

Appeal (No. 35 of 1937) from a decree of the High Court (January 16, 1935) which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bulandshahr (October 27, 1930).

Hulas Rai, a separated Hindu, died in 1874. By his will he provided that his widow Sundar Kunwar should have a life estate in all his property and that after her death the property should be divided between his brother and a nephew. His brother and nephew predeceased Sundar Kunwar both issueless. Sundar Kunwar thus obtained an absolute estate to which, on her death in 1914, her daughter Janki succeeded. Janki died in 1918 leaving two sons, Sagar Mal and Kirpa Ram, members of a Hindu joint family. Kirpa Ram died on March 10, 1924, leaving him surviving his widow Ram Kali (the respondent), and Sagar Mal died on March 18, 1924, leaving him surviving his widow Bhagwati (the appellant).

Disputes as to succession to the property inherited by their husbands from their mother, Janki, arose between the widows, which led to litigation in which Bhagwati set up a title to the whole of the property as joint family property to which her husband succeeded as the last survivor, and Ram Kali claimed half the property on the footing that her husband and his brother inherited the property as tenants in common.

A part of the property in dispute was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and the Collector by his award apportioned the compensation between the widows in equal shares. Ram Kali raised objections to the valuation of the land. Bhagwati, in addition to the objections to the valuation, raised the question of title to the compensation. The objections were referred under the Act to the District Judge, and the District Judge, on the issue as to wheted the question of title to the compensation. The objec tions were referred under the Act to the District Judge, and the District Judge, on the issue as to whether Bhagwati was entitled to the whole of the compensation or whether Ram Kali was entitled to a half, found in favour of Bhagwati.

Ram Kali thereafter brought the present action against Bhagwati for a declaration of her right to a half-share of the whole of the property inherited by the brothers from their mother.

The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held that it was barred as res judicata by the decision of the District Judge in the reference under the Land Acquisition case. The High Court reversed his judgment, holding (a) that Ram Kalis title was not the subject-matter of the reference to the District Judge, and he was not, therefore, competent to try it; (b) the decision of the District Judge was not given effect to in his decree; and (c) the brothers held the property as tenants in common.

1939. Feb. 13, 14. Sir Thomas Strangman K.C. and Pullan for the appellant. The suit is barred as res judicata. We are not relying on the decision of the Munsiff in the Rent Suit, but on the decision of the District Judge in the reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The decision of a Court on a question of title to compensation in a reference under the Land Acquisition Act will operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent suit to establish title to the land Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao. (( 1922)

L. R. 49 I. A. 129 ; I. L. R. 45 Mad. 320.)

Objection to the apportionment of the compensation by the Collector was taken by Bhagwati in her petition. There can be no doubt as to what she meant by " What particular person "is entitled to what compensation ? " She was claiming the whole as against Ram Kali. The District Judge understood that this was the claim and so did the parties, and the issues were framed accordingly.

Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Secretary of State for India (( 1929) L. R. 57 I. A. 100; I. L. R. 57 Cal. 1148.), which was relied on by the other side, does not help them.

C. S. Rewcastle K.C. and Hyam for the respondent. There seem to have been three awards made by the Collector, one on April 6, a second on September 21 or 29, and a third on November 1, 1927. It is