The main legal point established is that a previous suit does not bind co-owners who were not parties to it, and a compromise entered into by a co-owner does not bar the present suit.

K. Sadasivan, J.

1. Defendants 2 and 3 in O. S.220/63 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda are the appellants. The suit against them was for declaration that the plaintiffs and others residing in the plaint schedule property are entitled to draw water from the well situated in the defendants' property Sy. No. 877/5, the well being situated at the close extremity of the property, and an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with that right. The plaint schedule property along with other properties belonged to one Antony, who subjected the properties to partition and in the partition 'A' schedule was allotted to Lonappan and his brothers Vareeth and Chacko, 'B' Schedule to Vareed another son of Antony from whom the properties were purchased by the defendants. The C schedule was allotted to Ouseph and Luiz, the other two sons of Antony. Each of the three schedules - A, B and C - stated that a right to the extent of l/3rd in the well was also allotted to each of the three sharers. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the well mentioned in the partition deed was filled up and that the present well seen in the defendants' property was dug by Vareed, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. Vareed the brother of the plaintiffs also had purchased the shares of the other heirs of deceased Lonappan in the properties in A schedule (present plaint schedule) and filed a suit O. S.570/56 to establish the l/3rd right over the well in the defendants property. That suit was filed by him as owner of the present plaint schedule property for and on behalf of the resident in the plaint schedule properties including the plaintiffs, with their consent and knowledge. Though that suit was decreed by the trial court, the same was dismissed in appeal and against the appellate decision S.A. 140/59 was preferred to this court and here the parties compromised. Under the compromise Vareed was paid Rs. 150/- to dig a well in the plaint schedule property and accordingly a well was dug by Vareed, which is being used by the plaintiffs. The present suit, in the light of the above facts, is barred by res judicata. This contention was upheld by the trial court and the suit was dismissed; but in appeal, the lower appellate court set aside that decision and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in the appellate judgment.

2. The sole question for consideration is whether the suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in the prior suit O. S.570/56. That suit was filed by Vareed, a brother of the plaintiffs for a declaration of the right over the well and also for a perpetual injunction. The fact is not denied that the present plaintiffs were not parties to that suit. The plaintiffs' father (Lonappan) to whom' the A schedule property was allotted in Ex-Pi partition had 5 children - two sons and 3 daughters. On Lonappan's death the property devolved on his children of whom the plaintiffs are the unmarried daughters. The fact that they are possessed of a definite interest in the well cannot be denied. 1/3rd right in the well was specifically mentioned in A schedule of Ex. P1. O. S.570/56 was, as already I indicated, filed by the plaintiffs' brother Vareed. The plaintiffs and Vareed and the other children of Lonappan, all had distinct interest in the properties obtained by Lonappan in partition. As the plaintiffs were not parties to O. S.570/56, that decision cannot bind them. Their right in respect of the well was not a matter in issue in that suit. There is no basis for the defendants' claim that the previous suit was one brought for and on behalf of the present plaintiffs as well. It was not a representative suit at all. Ex.D1 is the copy of the plaint in that suit. A reading of Ex.D1 would show that Vareed the plaintiff in that suit, had brought the suit solely in his own right, and it was alleged in the plaint that 1/3rd right in the wel