1. This is an appeal by a lady who was the defendant No. 2 in the original suit. The pedigree at page 1 of the record would show that there were three brothers Umrao Singh, Babu Lal and Piare Lal. Umrao Singh died last of all the three brother. On his death, there was a dispute as to succession between Shib Devi the widow of Piare Lal and Umrao Singh's widow Bhu Deri. It appears that Piare Lal and Umrao Singh died within a few months of each other. The result of a compromise was that the property was divided equally between the two widows. There upon Devi Singh who was the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen instituted a suit in 1916 to obtain a declaration that Umrao Singh and his brothers formed a joint Hindu family and that on the death of Bhu Devi the property would be inherited by Umrao Singh's next reversioner. The necessary corollary was that Musammat Shib Devi if the suit succeeded was to have no interest in the property beyond the lifetime of Bhu Devi.
2. Debi Singh's suit succeeded and an appeal to the High Court by Musammat Shib Devi was dismissed. Shib Devi having died her daughter Prem Devi has succeeded in obtaining mutation of names in her favour so far as the property recorded in Shib Devi's name was concerned. Thereupon Dabi Singh and his nephew Jayanti Prasad alias Angad Singh the present respondent brought the suit with which we are concerned in appeal. Debi Singh died pending the suit and Jayanti Prasad alias Angad Singh, is now the sole plaintiff and respondent. The plaintiff's case was that the judgment obtained by Debi 'Singh against Musammal Shib Devi operated as res judicata and Prem Devi was bound by that judgment The plaintiffs also pleaded that the three brothers Umrao Singh, Babu Lai and Piare Lal died joint and Umrao Singh was the survivor of all the three.
3. Prem Devi replied that the brothers were separate and that she was not bound by the judgment obtained against the mother because the judgment had been obtained by fraud and collusion.
4. The Court below found that there was no fraud, there was no collusion and the judgment was binding on the present appellant.
5. In this Court it is contended that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in. his opinion that the previous judgment operated as res judicata.
6. The story as to fraud is explained at page 9 of the printed record. The case of Prem Devi as explained by her Counsel was that Prem Devi's mother was won over by Debi Singh and she acted as Debi Singh dictated. This is a story which did not go down, with the Court below and cannot go down with us. Prem (Devi Shib) Devi had to look after her own interest and she had to look after her daughter's interest. She had as her adviser her own father vide the statement of the appellant's witness Ram Lai at page 13. We agree with the Court below that there was no fraud and there was no collusion.
7. In the previous litigation Musammat Shib Devi fully represented her husband's estate if there was any and the judgment obtained against her is binding on the appellant.
8. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.