1. We think that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that Bhadrabahu was merely a pro forma defendant, in the prior suit (1021 of 1915). In this suit, brought by plaintiff, under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Bhadrabahu was added as defendant and after setting out the sale by the latter to plaintiff, the plaint asks for a declaration that the properties belong to plaintiff and that they are not liable for the decree in execution of which they were attached. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the properties. We are of opinion that plaintiff put in issue the validity of the sale-deed in his favour, and an issue to this effect was actually framed. It was open to either defendant to impeach the validity of the deed and we cannot hold that the question was not in issue-between the plaintiff and Bhadrabahu merely, by reason of the fact that Bhadrabahu admitted plaintiff's claim, which was disputed successfully by the attaching creditor. If plaintiff did not wish to put in suit his title against his vendors he should not have impleaded him and asked for a declaration of title. The case in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra (1908) 35 Cal. 202 relied on by respondent was one to which the judgment-debtor was not a party and the distinction between such a case and one in which the judgment-debtor is also impleaded, is pointed out very clearly by Sir John Edge, C.J., and Bannerji, J., in Dwarka Das v. Kameshar Prasad (1895) 17 All. 69 and we may also refer to Narayanan Singh v. Aiyasami Reddi (1916) 39 Mad. 602
2. In our view, the prior decision is clearly res judicata, as between plaintiff and Bhadrabahu and appellants, defendants, are the latter's representatives in interest and consequently it is also res judicata as against them.
3. The appeal must therefore be allowed and plaintiff's suit dismissed' with costs throughout