The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata and the principle that the last decree should prevail in the context of conflicting decrees.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit by the plaintiff for declaration of title and confirmation of possession on the ground that he has an occupancy raiyati right in the two jamas mentioned in the schedules ha and kha of the plaint and is not liable to be evicted therefrom. The facts which have led up to this suit are that a suit was brought in 1909 by the defendants for ejectment of the plaintiff from the lands in this suit alleging him to be an under-raiyat and that suit was dismissed. In 1918 the defendants brought a suit against the plaintiff u/s 66, Ben. Ten. Act, alleging that the plaintiff was his korfa tenant, for arrears of rent and in default of payment for ejectment. That suit was decreed ex parte but the plaintiff in this suit appeared at a later stage and deposited a portion of the decretal amount. It appears that he did not deposit the entire amount and, therefore, the defendant took out execution of the decree and obtained formal delivery of possession through Court. The tenant not having vacated the land the defendants brought a suit in 1921 for recovery of possession. This suit was decreed after contest up to the appellate Court. That decree was for khas possession of the lands with mesne profits against the plaintiff. Thereafter in 1924 the plaintiff instituted this suit for declaration of his occupancy right in the land and for confirmation of possession. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of schedule ha and decreed the suit in respect of schedule kha.

2. The plaintiff appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge in the appellate Court decreed the suit in respect of both these plots. The defendants have appealed before us but they have confined their appeal only to plot ka. The point taken in appeal is that the lower appellate Court was wrong in not giving effect to the decree passed in their favour in 1918 and 1921. The learned Subordinate Judge holds that the decree passed in 1909 in which the plaintiff was held to be an occupancy raiyat should operate as res judicata and accordingly the subsequent decrees in 1918 and 1921 must be treated as without jurisdiction and nullities. This view is clearly wrong. The plaintiff should have pleaded that the decree of 1909 had operated as res judicata in the suit in 1918. But he omitted to do so; and the result was that the Court passed a decree holding that the plaintiff was an under-raiyat, for that is the effect of the decree which was passed u/s 66, Ben. Ten. Act. In the suit of 1921 which was based upon the suit of 1918 the plaintiff again failed to bring to the notice of the Court the decree of 1909 with the result that the defendant's suit for khas possession and mesne profits was decreed against the plaintiff. The present suit on the face of the decree passed in 1921 is incompetent. Instead of taking the defence which the plaintiff now pleads in his plaint he brings another suit for the purpose of agitating the matters which were involved in the suits of 1918 and 1921. There is no procedure in law which entitles him to do it. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to attack a decree passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction not vitiated by fraud or inoperative in a subsequent suit. The only mode of assailing a decree by a separate suit is to attack it on the ground of fraud for which period of limitation is prescribed in the Limitation Act. On the general law, therefore, the plaintiff is precluded from maintaining this suit. Also on the rule of estoppel by judgment the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he claims.

3. The position at the worst in this case is that there are two conflicting decrees. By one decree the plaintiff's right as occupancy raiyat was established. By another decree that right was negatived. The point that arises in these circumstances is as to which decree should prevail. The trend of authorities is that the last decree ought to prevail. If finality is not given to the last decree there would be no