Dixit, J. - (1.)THESE two appeals arise out of two suits filed in each instance by one Krishna Ganu to recover from different defendants possession of certain property. The defendants are purchasers from one Bhau Govinda.
(2.)THE property involved in each suit originally belonged to one Nana Bala who died on January 20, 1929, without leaving any issue. It appears that Government took possession of Nana's property in the belief that Nana had no heir to succeed to his estate. THEreafter by miscellaneous application (No.16 of 1933) Bhau Govinda obtained on July 15, 1933, a succession certificate to the property of Nana and on the strength of the certificate he obtained possession of Nana's property. On August 30, 1933, Bhau Govinda sold to Vinayak Gangadhar Phadnis (defendant in suit No.163 of 1940) the property involved in the suit, viz. Survey Nos. 16-1, 17-1, 18-2 and 19-1 + 2 for Rs. 2,500. On the same day Bhau Govinda sold to Raghunath Narayan Jadhav (defendant in suit No.168 of 1940) the property involved in that suit which is Survey Nos. 14-2, 432-5 and 459-2 for the consideration of Rs. 500.
On December 12, 1933, Krishna Ganu filed against Bhau Govinda a suit (No.1549 of 1933) to obtain a declaration that he was the lawful heir of Nana Bala, and to recover from Bhau possession of the property. In that suit the learned First Class Subordinate Judge raised issues (1) Is the plaintiff the heir of the deceased Nana Bala ? and (2) Who is the nearest heir to him; whether the plaintiff or the defendant; and he answered the first issue in the affirmative and the second issue in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, he passed in favour of the plaintiff a decree for possession of the suit property with costs of the suit. From that decree the defendant preferred in this Court First Appeal No.86 of 1936 and on August 9, 1939, this Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff was the heir of the deceased Nana Bala, but this Court made certain consequential orders on Bhau's contention that as the plaintiff had sold certain survey numbers, he could not sue for possession of the same.

In 1940 Krishna Ganu commenced the present suits against defendant Phadnis and defendant Jadhav for possession of the property, costs and mesne profits alleging that he was the heir of Nana Bala and that his title had been established in Civil Suit No.1549 of 1933. Pending the suits, Krishna died and his widow Kasa was substituted in his place.

(3.)THE defendant in each case raised the contentions that the plaintiff was not the heir of Nana Bala and that as each of the defendants was not a party to the previous suit, the finding recorded in the previous suit was not binding upon them.
The two suits were with the consent of the parties tried as companion suits. The learned trial Judge dismissed each of the two suits, holding that the plaintiff was not a bandhu and as he had no title he should fail. On the question of res judicata he held that the defence was not barred by res judicata. On appeal, the learned Extra Assistant Judge confirmed the decrees of the trial Court, holding that deceased Krishna was not a heritable bandhu of Nana Bala, that Bhau Govinda was not a samanodaka of Nana Bala, that the defence was not barred by res judicata, that Survey Nos. 19-1 and 432-5 did not belong to the estate of Nana Bala, and that as Krishna's right to recover possession of Survey No.16-1 had been negatived in First Appeal No.86 of 1936, the plaintiff's claim was not sustainable. Against the appellate decrees the plaintiff's heir has filed these two appeals. As the suits and the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment in the Courts below, it will also be convenient here to dispose of them by a common judgment.

;