JUDGMENT K.L. Pandey, J. This is a defendant's appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appeal Court by which the plaintiff's claim for possession of malik-makbuza plots khasra Nos. 95 and 148 of village Chilachond Khurd and for mesne profits was decreed. In order to appreciate the questions in controversy, the genealogy accepted by the lower appeal Court is given below: The facts no longer disputed are these. The malik-makbuza plots in dispute were owned by Surat who died on 7th May 1953 leaving behind him surviving his widow Mst. Tulsi. She also died only a week later. Thereupon, Mst. Binia and her son Kishorilal sold the disputed plots to the defendant by a deed dated 13th July 1953. It may be mentioned here that, according to the genealogy given above, Mst. Binia is a daughter of an uncle of Surat. Subsequently, one Sukkha, who claimed to have inherited the two plots from Surat, executed in favour of the plaintiff a registered lease deed dated 8th June 1963 for a period of three years and then a sale deed dated 4th April 1955 in respect of those plots. Still another person, Jagan, filed Civil Suit No. 60-A of 1953 in the Court of Civil Judge, 2nd Class, Narsimhapur, laying claim to the plots. He impleaded the present plaintiff and defendant as defendants in the suit. After contest, the suit was dismissed and an appeal filed against that decision met the same fate. According to the plaintiff, Sone had, besides Hiralal and Parasram, a third son Khuman and Sukkha was a descendant of Khuman through his father Dharamdas and grandfather Daulat. That being so, Sukkha, being Surat's grandfather's brother's grandson, inherited the disputed plots in preference to Mst. Binia who is Surat's grandfather's brother's son's daughter. The plaintiff claimed title to the plots under the sale deed executed by Sukkha and averred that the defendant wrongfully took possession of the plots in July 1953. In answer to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant pleaded that the decision in Civil Suit No. 60-A of 1953 to the effect that Sukkha was not related to Surat operated as res judicata. Denying that Khuman and his descendants were related to Parasram and Hiralal, the defendant averred that Daulat, who was a son of Chensa, was unrelated to Khuman. The Court of first instance accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. Denying that Khuman and his descendants were related to Parasram and Hiralal, the defendant averred that Daulat, who was a son of Chensa, was unrelated to Khuman. The Court of first instance accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. The lower appeal Court reversed that decision holding that the judgment in the earlier suit did not operate as res judicata and that the family tree, as given in paragraph 2 above, showing that Sukkha was related to Surat as therein disclosed, was duly established. In this appeal, the defendant has challenged the two findings on which the decision of the lower appeal Court is grounded. On the first question, I am of opinion that the lower appeal Court's view that the earlier decision does not operate as res judicata is correct. In the first place, since the Judge in the earlier suit held that Jagan was not a son of Surat's sister, that by itself disentitled Jagan to any relief and it was not necessary to further decide which of the other claimants has a preferential right to inherit Surat. In other words, the decree in that suit is not based on the finding that Sukkha was not related to Surat. It is not that the distant relationship of Sukkha to Surat stood in the way of Jagan. That being so, the question about Sukkha's relationship could not be regarded as directly and substantially in issue in that suit and any decision on that question would not operate as res judicata: Asrar Ahmed v. Durgah Committee, Ajmer AIR 1947 PC 1. Also, since Sukkha succeeded in that suit on another plea and could not appeal against the adverse finding, the plea of res judicata cannot be grounded on such a finding: Midnapur Zamindari Company, Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1922 PC 241 : 48 IA 49. Finally, since the contention involves a plea of res judicata between co-defendants, the following conditions must be fulfilled before it can be accepted: (1) The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. (2) There was a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned. (3) It was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give relief to the plaintiff. (2) There was a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned. (3) It was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give relief to the plaintiff. (4) The question arising out of the conflict was finally decided: Munni Bibi v. Tirloki Nath AIR 1931 PC 114 : 58 IA 158, Maung Sein Done v. Ma Pan Nyun AIR 1932 PC 161 : 59 IA 247, Kedar Nath Goenka v. Ram Narain Lal AIR 1935 PC 239 : 62 IA 224 and Chandu Lal Agarwala v. Khalilur Rahaman AIR 1950 PC 17 : 77 IA 27. In the instant case, as shown, it was not necessary in order to give relief to Jagan to decide whether Sukkha was related to Surat. That being so, the earlier decision does not operate as res judicata on the material issue raised in this suit. On the second question, the defendant challenges the finding that Sukkha was related to Surat in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. It is a finding of fact which is binding in second appeal. It is, however, challenged on the ground that it is not based on legal evidence. Reliance is placed upon Lakshmi Reddi v. Venkata Reddi AIR 1937 PC 201 and it is urged that the evidence of witnesses, who did not disclose the sources of their information in regard to the disputed relationship, should have been discarded as inadmissible. It must be stated at the outset that so far the relationship of Khuman with Sone and his sons is concerned, there is on record both oral and documentary evidence. Similarly, there is good evidence supported by documents to show that Sukkha was a son of Dharamdas and a grandson of Daulat. However, there is only oral evidence in proof of the fact that Daulat was related to Khuman. While evidence of general reputation as proof of relationship is not admissible in evidence, opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is relevant when it is given by any person, who either as a member of the family or otherwise had special means of knowledge of the subject. Mst. Latia, a sister of Ganesh Prasad P.W. 3, was married to Daulat and, after Daulat died, Mst. Latia and her father-in-law Khuman were, according to the usual practice, received in the house of the witness. Mst. Latia, a sister of Ganesh Prasad P.W. 3, was married to Daulat and, after Daulat died, Mst. Latia and her father-in-law Khuman were, according to the usual practice, received in the house of the witness. This opinion of a close relation of Daulat, who had special means of knowledge about the relationship, as expressed by his conduct, is relevant. Ganpat P.W. 4 stated that Daulat was a son of Khuman and added that Dharamdas had disclosed to him the name of his father Daulat and that of his grandfather Khuman. This evidence is relevant under sub-section (5) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the lower appeal Court relied upon the evidence of Ganesh Prasad P.W. No. 3 and Ganpat P.W. No. 4, it cannot be said that its finding that Daulat was a son of Khuman is not based on legal evidence. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. The defendant shall bear his own costs and pay those of the plaintiff throughout. Hearing fee Rs. 50. Appeal dismissed