JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale brought on the basis of a mortgage-deed of the 30th of January, 1901. This mortgage-deed was executed by two persons, Musammat Salima and Chiraghan, The property mortgaged consisted of one whole house and a fourteen anna share in another house. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 300 only giving up the rest of his claim, and he sought to put to sale only the fourteen anna share in the second house. The mortgagors, Musammat Salima and Chiraghan himself, both died about the same time. The defendants were Musammat Mukima and the three sons of Chiraghan. Musammat Mukima contested the suit. She claimed to be the owner of a seven anna share in the house which the plaintiff sought to sell, and that Musammat Salima, her sister, and Chiraghan, her step-father, had no right to mortgage her property without her knowledge and consent. 2. It is common ground that the property in dispute was the property of one Budhu. 3. According to the plaintiff, Budhu died, leaving one daughter, Musammat Salima, and a widow, Musammat Najjan. Najjan married Chiraghan and Mukima is a daughter of Najjan by her second husband. 4. According to the defendant Mukima, Salima and Musammat Mukima were both daughters of Budhu, and on Budhu's death, deducting the two anna share of the widow, each daughter inherited a seven anna share of his estate. It is for this reason that Mukima claims the exemption of a seven anna out of fourteen anna share in the house which the plaintiff seeks to sell. 5. Both courts have held on the evidence that Musammat Mukima was the daughter of Budhu, that, as such, she inherited the seven anna share which she now claims, and that neither Salima nor Chiraghan had any power to mortgage it. The plaintiff got a decree for the sale of a seven anna share only. 6. In so far as the finding of the lower court is a finding of fact, it is binding of course on this Court. But in second appeal it was urged that the matter is “res judicata” by reason of a judgment, dated the 7th of July, 1892. 7. 6. In so far as the finding of the lower court is a finding of fact, it is binding of course on this Court. But in second appeal it was urged that the matter is “res judicata” by reason of a judgment, dated the 7th of July, 1892. 7. An examination of that judgment shows that at that time Salima and Mukima jointly brought a suit to recover a fourteen anna share in the estate of Buddhu as against their mother, Musammat Najjan, and one Hafiz Mamman, who is in no way connected with the present litigation. The defence in that case raised the plea that Musammat Mukima was the daughter of Najjan by Chiraghan and not by Buddhu. The only part of the record of that case before the court is the judgment of the appellate court therein. It is not clear which of the defendants raised this plea. The court of first instance acceded to the plea and gave Musammat Salima a decree of a seven anna share only. Salima and Mukima appealed. They raised two points; firstly, that Mukima was the daughter of Buddhu, and secondly, that even if she was not, as both she and Salima had jointly sued for fourteen anna share, Salima at least was entitled as the daughter of Buddhu to the whole of that share, which, therefore, ought to have been decreed to her. The appellate court decided both the points. It held that Mukima was the daughter of Najjan by Chiraghan, and not by Buddhu, and secondly, that as the suit was a joint one for the full fourteen anna share without any specification of shares, Salima was entitled to recover the whole fourteen anna share. 8. It is urged that this makes the matter res judicata between Musammat Mukima and the present plaintiff. The present plaintiff is the representative of Chiraghan and Salima. This, therefore, is tantamount to saying that the decision of the question afresh is barred by the rule of res judicata as between Musammats Salima and Mukima. This it clearly is not. The matter in the former litigation was not directly and substantially in issue between Salima and Mukima. They were arrayed on the same side, and they both pleaded that Mukima was the daughter of Buddhu. There was no difference whatsoever between them. 9. This it clearly is not. The matter in the former litigation was not directly and substantially in issue between Salima and Mukima. They were arrayed on the same side, and they both pleaded that Mukima was the daughter of Buddhu. There was no difference whatsoever between them. 9. In the next place, looking at the grounds of appeal in that case, it seems hardly necessary for the Court, in the view that it took of the case, to decide the question as to whether Mukima was the daughter of Buddhu or not. However, it is quite clear that the point can and must be decided afresh in the present suit as if it was never in issue between Salima and Mukima, much less was it decided between them in the former suit. 10. Attention has been called to the decision in Krishnan Nambiar v. Kannan, [1897] I.L.R., 21 Mad., 8 and it is urged that that decision was a ruling in accordance with which the decree in the suit of 1892 must operate as res judicata between Salima and Mukima, and those who claim through them. In the first place it is exceedingly doubtful whether that ruling goes so far as is contended. In the second place, if it does, I should find it impossible to follow it. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is fairly clear, and the facts of the present case do not fall within it. In my opinion, the decree of the 7th of July, 1892, cannot operate as res judicata between the present parties. This is the only point which has been pressed in this appeal. As it fails, the appeal is dismissed with costs.