N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This is unsuccessful defendants regular second appeal.

2. One Des Raj was owner of the suit property who left behind Smt. Bhani, Bharpai. Surti and Rajia his daughters. These persons claim themselves to be the sole heirs of Des Raj deceased. On the other hand defendants lay claim on the basis of a compromise decree dated 22.2.1965 as well as upon the will alleged to have been executed in their favour by the defendants, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration with consequential relief ofpossession

3. Defendants in their written statement raised few preliminary objections stating that suit is barred on the principle of res-judicata, plaintiffs have no locus stand to file the present suit and that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiffs are his daughters. It was further alleged that the decree was challenged by Mai Ram, which suit was dismissed. Defendants asserted the validity of the Will executed by Des Raj, which was in their favour.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed

(1) Whether the suit is barred by the principal of res-judicata?

(2) W