Ramesam, J.

1. The suit (O.S. 661 of 1918) was by one of three reversioners (plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 for a declaration that all the three were entitled to the suit property as reversioners and for partition and for recovery of one-third share of the suit property. Issue 2 raised the question whether plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 were reversioners. Issue 4 raised the question whether plaintiff was estopped by reason of the compromise decree in a suit of 1881. These points were found against defendant 1 and the suit decreed on 7th November 1919. There was an appeal. Meanwhile defendant 3 filed a suit, O.S. 100 of 1920, for his one-third share. Defendant 1 repeated his plea of estoppel based on the decree of 1881 against this claimant also and also contended:

As this plaintiff was a party to O.S. 661 of 1918 a separate suit is not maintainable,

thereby implying that he can get the relief he seeks in the suit O.S. 100 of 1920 in execution of O.S. 661 of 1918. This was in March 1920. In September 1921, defendant 3 stated that he was willing to pay Court-fees, and wanted a. final decree to be passed even as regards himself and prayed for the appointment of a commissioner. On 2