1. The circumstances of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The present plaintiff Bindhachal Rai, major son of Lal Bahadur Rai, and the three minor plaintiffs formed with the defendants 2nd party Lal Bahadur Rai, etc., a joint Hindu family, the manager of the family being Lal Bahadur Rai. Lal Bahadur Rai and the other defendants of the 2nd party brought a suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the defendants 1st party from two plots of land Nos. 549/2 and 551, claiming that the defendants 1st party were their sub-tenants and the land was their own sir land. The defence to that suit was that the defendants were proprietors and owners of plot No. 549/2 and occupancy-tenants of plot No. 551.
2. The Revenue Court decided all the questions which arose between the parties and held in favour of the defendants therein in respect of both plots. The present suit has been, brought in the Civil Court by the remaining members of the joint family for the ejectment of the same defendants from this laud and for joint possession together with the 2nd set of defendants. One of the pleas taken is defence was that the suit was barred by the rule of res judicata. The case was also contested on the merits. The Court of first instance held on the merits against the plaintiffs and also held that the suit was barred by the rule of res judicata. The lower Appellate Court on appeal only decided the question of law, and agreeing with the first Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal, the point raised being that the present suit is not barred by the rule of res judicata. There is no question that the family is joint, and the property in question as claimed is the joint family property. The plaintiffs clearly ask for possession jointly with the defendants 2nd party. It is also not denied that Lal Bahadur Rai was the managing member of the family. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the first suit brought in the Revenue Court was brought by the adult members of the family and the managing member not on behalf of themselves alone but on behalf of the joint family. It seems, therefore, clear to my mind that the principle, on which decisions of the Fall Bench in Hari Lal v. Nimman Kunwar 9 A.L.J. 819 : 34 A. 549: 15 Ind. Cas. 126 and that of Madan Lal v. Kishun Singh 9 A.L.J. 844 : 34 A. 572 : 15 Ind. Cas. 138 rest, applies with equal force in the present case. The former suit haring been brought by the managing member of the family on behalf of that family and the decision therein having been obtained fairly and without fraud is binding on the other members of the joint family who were duly represented in the former litigation. It is unnecessary, in my opinion, to mention other previous decisions of this and other High Courts in India in reference to the same point. It must be taken as finally and definitely settled that the manager of a joint Hindu family can both sue and be sued in his representative capacity, and decisions fairly obtained against him are binding on the other members of the family who were fully represented by him in the former litigation. There is no question that the former decision by the Revenue Court is binding as against those persons who were plaintiffs in that suit, and as the present plaintiffs were fully represented in that litigation, they are fully bound by that decision. In this view, the present suit is barred, and the plaintiff's appeal in the lower Court was rightly dismissed. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.