Surendra Narain Singh, J. - (1.) This is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit for declaration that one Jadunandan Chaubey died as a separated member of the family and that a decree obtained in suit No. 335 of 1940 against Smt. Asharfa widow of Jadunandan Chaubey did not bind the Plaintiff. In order to appreciate the facts of this case it is necessary to give the following pedigree: Tree Table
(2.) It appears that Jadunandan died in the year 1928 and on his death the name of his widow Smt. Asharfa Kuer was mutated in revenue papers. In the year 1940 Kashi Nath, Vindhayachal and Bindeshwari shown in the pedigree instituted a suit against Smt. Asharfa Kuer for a declaration that her husband Jadunandan died as a member of the joint Hindu family along with these three persons and that Smt. Asharfa Kuer had no interest in the property in suit except the right of maintenance. This suit of Kashi Nath and others was dismissed by the trial court, but on appeal the first appellate court accepted their contention and decreed the suit. A second appeal was filed by Smt. Asharfa Kuer which was summarily dismissed by this Court by its order dated 29th November 1944. Thereafter the present suit was instituted by Smt. Dhana Kuer the Plaintiff for declaration already mentioned above.
(3.) The defence to the case was that Jadunandan died as a member of a joint family along with the Defendants Kashi Nath, Vindhayachal and Bindeshwari as such Smt. Asharfa Kuer nor any body claiming through Jadunandan could get any interest in the property. It was further alleged that the decision in suit No. 335 of 1940 was binding on the Plaintiff and operated as res judicata. Plaintiff's being the daughter of Smt. Asharfa Kuer and Jadunandan was also denied. It was further alleged that the suit was not maintainable.;