This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for sale upon a mortgage executed by one Rudra Narain Singh on the 21st of January 1895. The property which the plaintiffs seek to sell for realisation of the amount of the mortgage is a share in the village Saondih. The plaintiffs' allegation is that this village belonged to Babu Chet Singh and was sold by him to his wife Dulhin Rup Kunwari in the year 1847; that Dulhin Rup Kunwari was the owner of the property and continued to be so till her death in 1887, and that upon her death it was inherited by Rudra Narain Singh as the next heir to her husband, he being the nephew of Chet Singh. One Bishun Shukul obtained a money decree against Dulhin Rup Kunwari and in execution of it caused the property in question to be attached and advertised for sale. Before the sale could take place, however, Dulhin Rup Kunwari died, and after her death Rudra Narain Singh first executed a usufructuary mortgage on the 14th of March, 1893, and subsequently, in lieu of the amount secured by that mortgage, the mortgage of the 21st of January, 1895, on which the present suit is based. It is said that with the money raised by Rudra Narain Singh he discharged Rup Kunwari's debt to Bishun Shukul, repaid other debts and defrayed the expenses of her Gaya Shradh. The defendant, Raja Pateshri Partab Narain Singh, is the Raja of Basti. He brought a suit against Rudra Narain Singh for possession of several villages, one of which was the village Saondih. The defendants to that suit were Rudra Narain Singh, and various transferees of the property including the present plaintiff. He claimed a declaration that he was entitled to the property and he prayed for possession of it. His claim was dismissed by the court of first instance but this Court decreed it and the decree of this Court has been affirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council. In that suit it was held that by virtue of a saprudnama, dated the 21st of March, 1848, executed by Chet Singh and a will of Musammat Rup Kunwari made by her in 1858, the Raja of Basti became entitled to the property held by Rup Kunwari, and that Rudra Narain Singh had no right to it. In the present suit the plaintiff seeks to go behind the decision in that suit. As has been stated above, he was placed in the array of defendants. In the 29th paragraph of his written statement he contended that the then plaintiff, that is, the present appellant, the Raja of Basti, had no right whatever to question the validity of the transfers made in his favour. He referred in specific terms to the transfers made by Dulhin Rup Kunwari and the hypothecation of the disputed villages by the defendant first party, namely Rudra Narain Singh. An issue was framed to the effect whether the court-fee was insufficient, the suit being for possession by avoidance of the transfers made by Rup Kunwari and Rudra Narain Singh. This issue proceeded on the assumption that the suit was also a suit to avoid the transfers made in favour of the present plaintiff. The issue was decided by the Court of first instance against the defendants to that suit and no exception was taken to that decision in the Appellate Court. The result of the final decision in that suit was, that the present appellant, the plaintiff to that suit, was declared entitled to the property claimed by him, and it was further declared that he had a right to recover possession of it from Rudra Narain Singh who was then in possession. The question of the title of the plaintiff to that suit was one of the material questions in the case and it was determined in favour of the plaintiff against the present plaintiff who was a party to the suit. It is true that no specific mention of the mortgage now in question was made in the judgment in that suit, but we think the present plaintiff, as defendant, did raise the question of the validity of the mortgage in his favour and was entitled to do so with a view to resist the plaintiff's claim