ORDER : This is defendant's application in revision against the decree of the District Judge, Guna. The short facts of the case are that one Jinwardas tiled a suit in the Court of the Pargnna Judicial Officer Mungawali against Chhunilal, Hiralal and Guljarilal on the allegation that Guljarilal who was his brother sold the house to Chhunilal and Hiralal by a sale deed dated 10-9-1935; that the house being a joint family property Guljarilal had no right to sell it; that the sale deed was without consideration and without any legal necessity. The plaintiff on these allegations prayed that the sale deed be declared to be void and possession be given to him. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal the District Sub-Judge held that the sale deed was valid and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Against this decree Jinwardas filed an appeal in the District Court against Chunilal and Hiralal. The District Judge reversing the decree of the District Sub-Judge confirmed the decree of the trial Court. Against this judgment and decree Chunilal and Hiralal have filed this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that in the appeal filed before the District Judge by Jinwardas, Guljarilal was not made a party. Consequently, the District Sub-Judge's finding that the sale deed is valid has become res judicata, as between the plaintiff and Guljarilal. Therefore, this finding must also be considered to be res judicata as between the plaintiff and Chunilal and Hiralal who are purchasers of the house from Guljarilal. This contention has great force. The fact that Guljarilal was not made a party in the District Judge's Court has not been disputed by the non-applicant. As far as Guljarilal is concerned, therefore, the finding that the sale deed is valid has become final. The same finding, therefore, must be considered to be final between the plaintiff and the purchasers from Guljarilal. In Chokalingam Chetty v. Singaram Chetty, AIR 1925 Rang 108 their Lordships of the Rangoon High Court observed as follows : "When the present appeals were argued, it was pointed out that the foundation of the title of all the defendants was the sale deed from the K.P. joint family to Bansilal Abirchand. It was pointed out that the decrees of the lower Courts declared this sale to be perfectly valid as between the plaintiff. Bansilal Abirchand and the E.N.M.K. firm. It was pointed out that the decrees of the lower Courts declared this sale to be perfectly valid as between the plaintiff. Bansilal Abirchand and the E.N.M.K. firm. This finding has been left unappeald against by the omission of Bansilal Abirchand from the appeals; and it was contended that this made the point res judicata between the plaintiff and Bansilal Abirchand. Hence, it would also be res judicata as between the plaintiff and the sub-purchaser from Bansilal Abirchand. The point appears to be indisputable and the question arose as to whether Bansilal Abirchand and the E.N.M.K. firm could be added as respondents in the present appeals." 3. The same case went to the Privy Council. Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows : "The learned Judges state in their judgment that when the appeals came on for argument it was pointed out that the foundation of all title of the defendants was the sale deed to the first defendant; that the decrees of the lower Court declared the sale deed to be perfectly valid as between the plaintiff and the defendant 1; that owing to the failure to make the defendant 1, a respondent, there was no appeal from this finding which had consequently become res judicata as between the plaintiff and the first defendant, and must also be regarded as res judicata against the respondents, who claimed through the first defendant, or in other words, as it was put by the learned Judges at the end of the judgment, the finding that the sale to the first defendant was good, carried with it a finding that it was also good as between the plaintiff and the purchasers from defendant 1. As regards this question, their Lordships agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the plaintiff cannot be allowed in these appeals to question the validity of the sale to the first defendant or to set up in the first suit the benami character of the purchase by the E.N.M.K. firm from the first defendant so long as the findings in favour of the first defendant and the E.N.M.K. firm stand, and are, therefore, of opinion that as regards this part of the case the plaintiff must fail unless defendant 1 and E.N.M.K. firm are made parties to the appeal." Vide Ghokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache, AIR 1927 PC 252 at p. 255. This authoritative decision of the Privy Council concludes the point at issue. As Guljarilal was not made a party in appeal before the District Judge, finding of the District Sub-Judge that the sale deed is valid is res judicata as between the plaintiff and Guljarilal. That finding carries with it a finding that it is valid as between the plaintiff and the purchasers from Guljarilal. In these circumstances the contention raised by the applicant must be upheld. 4. Accordingly, I allow this revision and setting aside the decree of the District Judge restore that of the District Sub-Judge. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, I order the parties to bear their own costs of this revision. Revision allowed.