Madhavan Nair, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of Rs. 12 and odd on account of jodi on an enfranchised inam for faslis 1326 and 1327. The first defendant pleaded that he was not liable to pay any jodi. The question that was considered in the first Court was whether the plaintiff is entitled to the jodi claimed. On the evidence before the first Court it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the jodi and so dismissed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal the District Judge agreed with the judgment of the first Court on the question whether the defendants were liable to pay the jodi claimed but reversed it on a question of res judicata which was not raised by the parties in the first Court. As against this decision the Second Appeal and the C.R.P. have been filed in this Court by the defendants.

2. It is obvious that no Second Appeal lies and this is admitted by the learned Vakil for the appellants himself. But he asks the interference of this Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code on the ground that a material irregularity has been committed by the lower Court in reversing the judgment of the first Court on a new question w