( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for partition.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff respondent and the pro forma defendant Shrimati Tejo claimed to be the owners of a half share in the property in suit. They relied upon a previous decree in support of their claim. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant Shrimati Tejo had no share in the property at all and that the previous decree did not operate as res judicata.

( 3 ) THE trial Court upheld the defence and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, held that, although the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant Shrimati Tejo could not prove that they had half share, the point was concluded by the previous judgment as against the defendants who were parties thereto, and, therefore, it decreed the suit.

( 4 ) IN this second appeal the only point urged is that the previous decree did not operate as res judicata.

( 5 ) THE facts relating to this matter are as follows: One Ram Sarup had a simple money decree against the contesting defendants. He attached the property in suit as belonging to them. There was an objection filed by the plaintiff and Shrimati Tejo under Order