JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - This Appeal arises out of a suit by one claiming to be entitled to a reversion, for recovery of possession of a moiety of a property, after setting aside an alienation purporting to have been made by the original owner's widow. Prior to the present suit, another had been instituted by the same Plaintiff against the same Defendant, for the purpose of recovering the property of which that now in suit forms a part. The issue was raised in that case as to whether there was legal necessity for the widow's alienation ; and it was held adversely to the present Defendant that there was no legal necessity for the purported alienation to him. But it was further held that the Plaintiff's suit must fail as to a moiety, because it was not shown that more than a moiety of the reversion had passed to him. The present suit was commenced in 1909 at a time when this moiety had passed to the Plaintiff so that he was in the position of a reversioner in regard to it, and in this suit he claims the moiety which he failed to recover in the former suit. He brings this suit against the same Defendant seeking to recover the moiety that was included in the former suit and impugns the same transaction as was successfully impugned in the former suit. In these circumstances, it has been contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that the determination by the Court of the former suit as to the existence of the legal necessity concluded the matter. That view has been accepted by both the Courts. It has been argued before us that the provisions of sec. 11 of the CPC do not cover the present case, for it is urged that it cannot be said that the parties are litigating under the same title. The learned vakils have not been able to bring to our notice any decision which defines with precision what the meaning is of the phrase "litigating under the same title." But in my opinion, these words cannot exclude the application of the rule of res judicata to the issue of legal necessity which has been raised. The learned vakils have not been able to bring to our notice any decision which defines with precision what the meaning is of the phrase "litigating under the same title." But in my opinion, these words cannot exclude the application of the rule of res judicata to the issue of legal necessity which has been raised. That issue was tried and determined between the present litigants in the former suit and in that suit as in this the Plaintiff has litigated as the owner of the reversion and the Defendant as the purchaser from the widow. This therefore is eminently a case where the doctrine of res judicata should apply. 2. We must, therefore, uphold the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and dismiss the Appeal with costs. Woodroffe, J. I agree.