1. I think that this appeal must be allowed, upon the additional ground of appeal which has been filed, namely that the decision of the trial Court upon the plaintiff's title to and possession of the property was res judicata and not open to revision or reversal by the appellate Court. The plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff claimed to have title to and to be in possession of the suit land. His suit was decreed in the trial Court, and defendants 1 and 2 were restrained by injunction from interfering with his enjoyment of the same. Defendant 1, who claimed title to the land by purchase from defendant 2, and who had no other basis of title, appealed. Unfortunately, he neglected to make defendant 2 a respondent to the appeal. The result is, I think, that the decision against defendant 2 having become a final decision, operated as a bar to defendant 1's attempt to re-open that decision. This is the principle to be derived from the Privy Council ruling in V.P.R.V. Chokkalingam Chetty v. Seethai Achi . In other words, there being no appeal by defendant 2 against the trial Court's finding, that finding had become res judicata against defendant 1 who claimed through defendant 2. It has, however, been urged that this Court should not entertain this second appeal in the peculiar circumstances in which the additional grounds of appeal have come to be made. No doubt a second appellate Court will be chary of allowing an appellant to take a point in second appeal which has not been raised, and which ought to have been raised, at an earlier stage of the hearing. But this particular point involves a question of res judicata which a Court is bound to entertain notwithstanding that the parties themselves may even have abandoned it. Then it has been suggested that defendant-appellant 1 should be allowed to meet this belated objection to his appeal by remanding it for re-hearing on the merits after giving him the opportunity of adding defendant 2 as a respondent. But the time in which this might have been done has long expired, and their Lordships in V.P.R.V. Chokkalingam Chetty v. Seethai Achi , have ruled that it is impossible to regard a defendant against whom a right of appeal has become barred as a person 'interested in the result of the appeal' within the meaning of Order 41, Rule 20. For these reasons I must allow this second appeal, and as it seems to me that defendant 1 ought to have been alive to the necessity of making defendant 2 a party to his appeal in the lower appellate Court, the appeal must be allowed with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.