JUDGMENT P.L. Bhargava. J. 1. Baldeo Singh, who was arrayed as a defendant in the suit which has given rise to this appeal and who died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court, had adopted Jagrup Singh defendant-respondent, and executed a deed of adoption on March 8, 1946. Sheo Ratan Singh who claimed to be presumptive reversioners of Baldeo Singh, instituted a suit, No. 238 of 1945 against Jagrup Singh, Lilambar Singh, Bijolan Singh. Lal Bahadur Singh and others, in the court of Munsif of Kanpur, to obtain a declaration that Jugrup Singh had not been adopted, and ' the alleged adoption was not valid or binding on the reversioners. Another set of persons, namely, Lilambar Singh, Bijolan Singh and Lal Bahadur Singh, who also claimed to be the preemptive reversioners of Baldeo Singh and who have preferred this appeal, instituted a suit No. 744 of 194.6 to obtain a similar declaration in respect of Jagrup Singh's adoption. Suit No. 238 of l946 was decided earlier, and in that suit it wag hold that the adoption of Jagrup Singh was valid and binding on the reversioners. There was an appeal against the decree in that suit; and the decree was affirmed. The second suit has been dismissed on the ground that the decision is the previous suit operates as res judicata. This decision has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court; hence this appeal. 2. Lamed counsel for appellants has argued that the second suit was not barred by the rules of res judicata, as it had been filed independently of the previous, suit, and it ought to have been disposed of on merits; On behalf of, the respondents, it has been contented that, in view of the explanation VI of Section 11 of the CPC and the principle laid down in Kesho Prasad Singh v Sheo Prasad Ojha (1) and in Bantidhar v Dulhatia (2) the decision of the court below is correct. 3. The relief claimed in the previous suit, as already stated, was that the alleged adoption was not valid or binding on the reversioners. In other words, the Suit had been instituted in the interest and for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners. It may be noted here that the plaintiff a in the second suit were arrayed as defendants in the previous suit. In other words, the Suit had been instituted in the interest and for the benefit of the entire body of reversioners. It may be noted here that the plaintiff a in the second suit were arrayed as defendants in the previous suit. Consequently, the fact that they had instituted another suit could not effect the nature or the purpose of the previous suit. Explanation VI of Section 11 of the CPC says: Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such fight shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating . 4. In the previous suit the same right, which was being claimed in the second suit, was in issue and decided ; and there is no allegation that the previous suit was a collusive suit. The second suit was, therefore, fully covered by Section 11 of the Code. 5. In Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pragash Ojha ILR 44 All. 19 it has been held; that a suit by a reversioners for setting aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow in possession is brought by him in a representative capacity, that is, as representing the whole body of reversioners, for the protection of the estate. A decree in such a suit is, therefore binding, not only between the reversioners who brought the suit and the transferee, but also as between the whole body of reversioners on the one hand and the transferee or his representative in title on the other. 6. It is true, that there is a difference between the character of a suit instituted by a reversioners to declare an alienation by a qualified owner as not binding beyond the lifetime of the alienor and that of a suit brought to challenge an adoption ; but as has been pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Venkatanarayana Pillai v. Subbammal ILR 38 Mad. 406 in both kinds of cases so far as the point for decision is concerned, it is the same. 7. In a later decision of this Court, in Bansidhar v. Dulhatta, ILR 47 All 505 following Kesho Prasad Singh's case, it was held "that a suit by a reversioner came within explanation VI of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure". 8. 7. In a later decision of this Court, in Bansidhar v. Dulhatta, ILR 47 All 505 following Kesho Prasad Singh's case, it was held "that a suit by a reversioner came within explanation VI of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure". 8. I therefore, see no force in the contention put forward on behalf of the appellants. The decision of the Court below is correct. 9. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.