P.L. Bhargava. J. - (1.) BALDEO Singh, who was arrayed as a defendant in the suit which has given rise to this appeal and who died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court, had adopted Jagrup Singh defendant -respondent, and executed a deed of adoption on March 8, 1946. Sheo Ratan Singh who claimed to be presumptive reversioners of Baldeo Singh, instituted a suit, No. 238 of 1945 against Jagrup Singh, Lilambar Singh, Bijolan Singh. Lal Bahadur Singh and others, in the court of Munsif of Kanpur, to obtain a declaration that Jugrup Singh had not been adopted, and ' the alleged adoption was not valid or binding on the reversioners. Another set of persons, namely, Lilambar Singh, Bijolan Singh and Lal Bahadur Singh, who also claimed to be the preemptive reversioners of Baldeo Singh and who have preferred this appeal, instituted a suit No. 744 of 194.6 to obtain a similar declaration in respect of Jagrup Singh's adoption. Suit No. 238 of l946 was decided earlier, and in that suit it was hold that the adoption of Jagrup Singh was valid and binding on the reversioners. There was an appeal against the decree in that suit; and the decree was affirmed. The second suit has been dismissed on the ground that the decision is the previous suit operates as res judicata. This decision has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court; hence this appeal.
(2.) LAMED counsel for appellants has argued that the second suit was not barred by the rules of res judicata, as it had been filed independently of the previous, suit, and it ought to have been disposed of on merits; On behalf of, the respondents, it has been contented that, in view of the explanation VI of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principle laid down in Kesho Prasad Singh v Sheo Prasad Ojha (1) and in Bantidhar v Dulhatia (2) the decision of the court below is correct. The relief claimed in the previous suit, as already stated, was that the alleged adoption was not valid or binding on the reversioners. In other words, the Suit had been instituted in the interest and for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners. It may be noted here that the plaintiff a in the second suit were arrayed as defendants in the previous suit. Consequently, the fact that they had instituted another suit could not effect the nature or the purpose of the previous suit. Explanation VI of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure says: Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such fight shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating .
(3.) IN the previous suit the same right, which was being claimed in the second suit, was in issue and decided ; and there is no allegation that the previous suit was a collusive suit. The second suit was, therefore, fully covered by Section 11 of the Code.;