Judgement

Appeal (No. 141 of 1923) from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (February 6, 1913) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich.

The suit was brought by the appellants to recover a moiety of the estate of a deceased Hindu, Raghunath Singh ; they claimed that according to a custom of the family they were the next reversionary heirs upon the death of the widow of the deceased.

The respondents by their written statements, pleaded (inter alia) that the claim was barred under s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as being res judicata.

The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

Both Courts in India held that the plea of res judicata was established, and that the suit should be dismissed.

1924. Oct. 24. De Mello for the appellants, referred to Parsotam Gir v. Narbada Gir (( 1899) L. R. 26

I. A. 175.); Kailash Mondul v. Baroda Sundari Dasi (( 1897) I. L. R. 24 C. 711.); Konerrav v. Gurrav (( 1880) I. L. R. 5 B. 589.) ; Chand Kour v. Partab Singh (( 1888) L. R. 15 I. A. 156.) ; Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secretary of State for India (( 1888) L. R. 15 I. A. 186.); Sheosagar Singh v. Sitaram Singh (( 1897) L. R. 24 I. A. 50.)