( 1 ) THE following question has come up before us on a reference by a learned single Judge:

"whether the appeal is barred by Section 11, Civil P. C. , or by the general principles of res judicata as the appeals preferred against the decisions in suits Nos. 77 and 91 of 1951 were rejected and dismissed by this Court and those decisions have become final and binding between the parties. "?

( 2 ) THE facts of the case have been set out in detail in the referring order, and it is unnecessary therefore to repeat them, except in so far as it is relevant for answering the question posed above.

( 3 ) CH. Bhagwan Sahai, the appellant in the aforesaid appeals, brought a suit No. 37 of 1950, against Smt. Daryao Kuer, the first respondent in these appeals, for a declaration that he and his son Ch. Shiv Dan, the second respondent, were the owners of the properties in suit, and for possession in the alternative. According to Ch. Bhagwan Sahai the recorded owner of these properties was his uncle Sri Harnam Singh. Sri Harnam Singh and his adopted son Ram Kishen used to live jointly with Ch. Bhagwan Sahai. Hence after the death of Sri Harnam Singh and his son, Ch. Bhagwan Sahai, and his son, became the owners of the entire joint family property by survivorship though the names of the widows of Sri Harnam Singh and Sri Ram Kishen were got entered in the revenue papers simply for their consolation and they had no right or title to any part of those properties. The plaint contained some other allegation also, but for the purposes of the present reference it is not necessary to mention them. On these, and the unmentioned allegations, Ch. Bhagwan Sahai prayed for the reliefs stated above. Shortly afterwards Ch. Bhagwan Sahai filed another Suit No. 42 of 1950, against Smt. Daryao kuer and one other person, claiming the price of the crop which stood on some Sir and khudkasht plots in villages Pirangarh and Kasimabad, on the allegations that Smt. Daryao Kuer had cut and misappropriated the Kharif crop standing on those plots in 1356f without having any right title or interest in the same. Smt. Daryao Kuer contested both the suits. Her defence inter alia, was that there had been a complete partition in the family, as a result of which Sri harnam Singh and after him, adopted son, Ram Kishen, became the owners of their separated shares. After the death of Ram Kishen the defendant inherited the said property as his widow.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid suits Smt. Daryao Kuer also instituted suits Nos. 77 and 91 of 1950, against Ch. Bhagwan Sahai, and his son Ch. Siv Dan Singh. The former suit was for the recovery of the price of her share of the crops grown on some Sir and Khudkasht plots in village Kasimabad in Rabi 1356f, which had been cut and misappropriated by the defendants, while the latter suit was for the same relief in respect of her share of the crops grown on some Sir and Khudkasht plots in village Kasimabad in Rabi 1353f, which had been cut and misappropriated by the defendants. According to Smt. Daryao Kuer, the plots in question belonged to the parties jointly, and the crops in suit were jointly sown by them, and hence she was entitled to halt the price of the said crops. In suit No. 77 of 1950, she also claimed a relief of permanent injunction for restraining Ch. Bhagwan Sahai and Ch. Shiv Dan Singh from letting out the said Sir and Khudkasht plots without her consent. Smt. Daryao Kuers suits were filed in the Court of the Munsif, while those of Ch. Bhagwan sahai were filed in the Court of the Civil Judge. Subsequently by an order of the District Judge the two suits of Smt Daryao Kuer were transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, where they, and the two suits of Sri Bhagwan Sahai, were consolidated and tried together with the consent of the parties. All these suits were also disposed of by a common judgment, but separate decrees were prepared in each suit. In all these suits, five issues were common, while in each