1. We are clearly of opinion that the decision of the lower appellate Court is erroneous as regards limitation and that the suit is saved from the bar of limitation by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The former suit in the Ongole District Munsif s Court comprised all the items of property involved in the present suit. The two plaintiffs who prosecute the present suit are the only plaintiffs who instituted the former suit, though on application made by the son of a deceased reversionary heir of parallel grade with the plaintiffs, he was joined as a co-plaintiff. The defendants having objected to the jurisdiction of the Ongole District Munsif, a Commissioner was appointed to value the lands and in the result it was held that the value of the suit exceeded the jurisdiction of the District Munsif and the District Munsif, therefore, ordered the plaint to be returned. Within a few days of this order the present plaintiff presented a petition to the District Munsit offering to withdraw their claim to items Nos. 6,'and 7 and half of No. 8, so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the District; Munsif and thus save them the expense of going to another court. The District Munsif allowed this to be done and trying the suit on the merits gave a decree in favour of the present plaintiffs holding that the additional plaintiff's father predeceased the widow.
2. All the defendants who were joined in the suit were interested in the remaining items of the property. The principal defendants (1 and 2) appealed against the District Munsif's decree, contending that it was not competent to the District Munsif to allow the plaintiffs to prosecute the suit only in respect of so much of the plaint property as would be in value within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif and that in law the suit should be regarded as one comprising the whole of the property originally claimed and this contention prevailed and the District Judge returned the plaint which was then presented to the Subordinate Judge including also the items 6, 7 and half of 8, omitted in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif.
3. We may here add that, the additional plaintiff, whose claim was disallowed by the District Munsif, did not prefer an appeal against the dismissal of the suit so far as he was concerned and though the defendants in the present suit set up this claim by pleading that the present plaintiffs alone could not prosecute the claim, it was found in this suit also that he had no claim. The present suit therefore is founded on the same cause of action and is between the same parties within the meaning of Section 14 and the fact that a person who, it is found now also, has no real claim, was joined as a co-plaintiff in. a former suit on his own application does not make the present suit one between parties different from those in the former suit. According to the decision of the Appellate Court in the former suit, obtained on the contention of the present respondents, it must be taken that the items comprised in the present suit were all comprised in the former suit, as otherwise the former suit could not have been dismissed on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Munsif. The suit therefore is not barred in respect of all or any of the items. Both the courts found for the plaintiffs on the merits. We must therefore set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Subordinate Judge with the modification that items Nos. 6, 7 and the portion of No. 8, that were disallowed will also be decreed to the plaintiffs with mesne profits in respect of those items also from date of decree and with costs through out.