1. In the former suit (No. 212 of 1898), the present eighth defendant, claiming under an assignment by way of melcharth from the sixth defendant therein (the predecessor in title of the present plaintiff, the Zamorin of Calicut) sued to ejeot the then first defendant (now second defendant) as being in possession under a sub-lease given to by the then seventh defendant who was alleged to be a lessee under the then sixth defendant. The then sixth defendant supported the then plaintiff's claim. The then first defendant, however, claimed the property as his own jenm property and as having been in possession as absolute owner for more than 12 years. Though his jenm title was held not to be proved, it was held in that suit that the sub-lease was not proved, and that the then first defendant did not hold the property as a tenant of the Devaswom represented by the then sixth defendant. It was also held that then first defendant was in possession as owner for more than the statutory period and had thus acquired title by limitation. The then sixth defendant not only supported the then plaintiff but took an active part in the controversy and was represented by a vakil in all stages of the suit, both in the Courts below and in the High Court.
2. We therefore hold that there was an adjudication in the suit between the then sixth and first defendants, that the latter had acquired a title by adverse possession, and this was the ground on which the then plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
3. Following the decisions of this Court in Madhavi v. Kelu I.L.R. 15 Mad. 264 and Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayanan Mussad I.L.R. 22 Mad. 323, we hold that that adjudication is res Judicata against the plaintiff in the present suit, who is the successor in title of the then sixth defendant, and in favour of the present second defendant, who is the appellant before us.
4. We may point out that there is no confict between the two decisions of this Court referred to above and the case in Ramanuja Ayyanyar v. Narayana Ayyangar I.L.R. 18 Mad. 374 as supposed by the Subordinate Judge, inasmuch as there was no conflict on the pleadings of the co-defendants in the latter case, and, in fact, both of them jointly opposed the plaintiff.
5. We set aside the order of remand of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decree of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.