Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : These are connected appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, and the only question raised herein is one of resjudicata. They will be dealt will together. The appellant s father brought suit No. 37 of 1950 against the respondent, Smt. Daryao Kunwar; for a declaration that he was the owner of the properties in suit and for possession in the alternative. The appellant was also a party to the suit as a pro forma defendant. Since his father is dead, he has been substituted in his place. The case put forward in the plaint was that Harnam Singh was the uncle of the appellant s father. Ram Kishan was the adopted son of Harnam Singh, and the respondent is his widow. The appellant and his father were living jointly with Harnam Singh and his adopted son Ram Kishan and on the deaths of Harnam Singh and his adopted son, the appellant and his father became owners of the joint properties by survivorship; but the names of the widows of Harnam Singh and Ram Kishan were entered in revenue papers for their consolation, though they had no right or title to any part of the property in dispute. There were other allegations in the plaint with which we are however not concerned in the present appeals.

2. Shortly afterwards the appellant s father filed another suit No. 42 of 1950 against the respondent and one other person claiming the price of the crops which stood on certain sir and khudakasht plots in two villages on the allegation that the respondent had cut and misappropriated the crops standing on these plots without having any right, title or interest therein. The respondent Smt. Daryao Kinwar contested both the suits. Her main defence was that there had been complete partition in the family as a result of which Harnam Singh and after him his adopted son Ram Kishan were the sole owners of their separated shares. After the death of Ram Kishan, the respondent inherited his entire property as his widow. Both these suits had been filed in the court of the Civil Judge.

3. While these suits were pending, the respondent instituted two suits of her own Nos. 77 and 91 of 1950 against the appellant and his father. Suit No. 77 was for recovery of the price of her share of the crop grown on certain sir and khudkasht plots which had been cut and misappropriated by the appellant and his father. Suit No. 91 was also for a similar relief in respect of the respondent s share of crops grown on certain sir and khudkasht plots in another village which had also been cut and misappropriated by the appellant and his father. Her case was that the plots in question in both the villages belonged to the parties jointly and the crop was jointly sown by them and she was entitled to half of the said crops. Father in Suit No. 77 of 1950 she also claimed the relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant and his father from letting out the said plots without her consent. These two suits were filed in the court of the Munsif while suits filed by the appellant s father had been instituted in the court of the Civil Judge. Subsequently by an order of the District Judge, the two suits filed by the respondent were transferred to the court of the Civil Judge. Thereafter all the four suits were consolidated and tried together by the Civil Judge with the consent of the parties. All these suits were disposed of by a common judgment but separate decrees were prepared in each suit. In all these suits five issues were common. In addition there were other issues in each case respecting the particular merits thereof. One of the common issues related to respectively rights of the parties to the suit property. The findings of the Civil Judge on this issue was that Smt. Daryao Kunwar was entitled to the properties claimed by the appellant s father in his suit No. 37 of 1950. The Civil Judge therefore dismissed that suit. Further in view of the finding on the question of title in suit No. 37 of 1950, suit No. 91 of 1950 was decr