JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 6, 1970 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 2. The suit was filed under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by Jagannath who claimed that the land in suit had been settled with him as subtenant by Smt. Dhanesra, defendant No. 1 acting on behalf of Chhatradhari Singh minor, defendant No. 2 in the year 1918 and he himself had been in possession as such an accordingly acquired title as Sirdar. The suit was contested by Chhatradhari Singh, defendant No. 2 on the grounds that no settlement of sub-tenancy has ever been made with the plaintiff by himself or his mother, that the land had been given to his mother Smt. Dhanesara in lieu of maintenance by his father and he himself had been in continuous cutivatory possession. 3. The learned trial court dismissed the suit or the plaintiff on the basis of finding of fact recorded by itself that the plaintiff had been dispossessed in 1954 and therefore, his rights as sub-tenant or Sirdar if any had extinguished. This dispossession was proved by a Dakhalnama in suit No. 246 under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 4. The appeal has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner who took note of the fact that the ex parte decree under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as a result of which Dhanesara had taken possession over the land in 1954, had later been set aside by superior courts. 5. The records show that the litigation under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act referred to above had gone upto the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and was between Smt. Dheneshara and Jagannath. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in second appeal No. 1027 of 1957 is bated March 20, 1963. The text discloses that Smt. Dhanesnara had brought the suit under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for ejectment of defendant on the ground that he was an Asami. The defence was that the plaintiff was not the real tenant in chief and that she had also not sublet the property to himself. The text discloses that Smt. Dhanesnara had brought the suit under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for ejectment of defendant on the ground that he was an Asami. The defence was that the plaintiff was not the real tenant in chief and that she had also not sublet the property to himself. It was argued on his behalf before the Hon'ble High Court that the name of Smt. Dhaneshara might have been entered in the revenue papers, but since the lower appellate courts had found that the fixed rate tenancy belonged to Jang Bahadur who was succeeded by his son Chhatradhari Singh, the plaintiff could not become tenant-in-chief and, therefore, any sub-letting by her was not sub-letting by a disabled person. On behalf of the appellant it was argued that since the defendant himself had accepted her as landholder by payment of rent to her, she was the landholder. 6. The Hon'ble High Court rejected the plea of the appellant. The relevant portion of the judgment is given below : "Even though it is correct that the rent was being paid and was also deposited by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, yet she could not be treated to be the landholder because after the death of the last tenant, Sri Jang Bahadur Singh, the tenancy devolved under the Tenancy Law on his son Chhatradhari Singh and not upon the widow, i.e. the present plaintiff. Even though the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue papers and even though the rent was being paid to her it shall be deemed that all this was being done on behalf on the real tenant who was the son of the appellant. The real tenant being Chhatradhari Singh, who was perhaps minor on the date of sub-letting or on the date of death of his father,k the entry in the tenant's column was made in favour of the plaintiff and not in the name of the plaintiff's son. This would not make the plaintiff the land holder. The land holder will be the person to whom rent was payable in law. This would not make the plaintiff the land holder. The land holder will be the person to whom rent was payable in law. For all these reasons it cannot be accepted that there was a sub-letting by a disabled person and that the position of the defendant was that of an Asami or that the defendant was liable to be ejected under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. act. The appeal fails. It is dismissed with costs." 7. It has been argued before me one behalf of Chhatradhari Singh, that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court referred to above is not binding upon him as the principle of res judicata laid down by Section 11, C.P.C. could not be made applicable, he himself not having been a party in the proceedings which were exclusively between his mother Smt. Dhaneshara and Jagannath. 8. It is correct that the appellant was not a party before the Hon'ble High Court but it was his mother who was litigating. Since the court held in effect however that all transactions entered into by his mother since the death of her husband had in legal terms been on behalf of the real tenant who was Chhatradhari Singh, it must be held that the litigation conduced by Smt. Dhaneshara before the Hon'ble High Court for ejectment of the defendant, was also on behalf of her son. 9. Section 11, C.P.C. prohibits trial of any suit or issue by a court in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in a former suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigation under the same title. In the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, the interests of mother and son must be deemed to be identical and the decision given by the Hon'ble High Court in favour of the defendant must be held binding on Chhatradhari Singh even though he was not party in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Court. 10. It would not be out of place to take note of the fact that even where the provisions of Section 11 C.P.C. are not capable of rigid application to the facts of a particular case, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has held that the general principle of res judicata could possibly be made to apply. 10. It would not be out of place to take note of the fact that even where the provisions of Section 11 C.P.C. are not capable of rigid application to the facts of a particular case, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has held that the general principle of res judicata could possibly be made to apply. In a ruling reported in 1967 R.D. 56, the general principle was applied where the facts were that the defendant had filed a suit in a civil court for permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiff in a partition suit from interpreting with his possession in the disputed plots. The suit had been dismissed by the Addl. Munsif with a finding that the plaintiff was not the exclusion Sirdar of the plots. The decision in the partition suit which had been to the effect that the land belonged exclusively to the plaintiff was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court which held in the above ruling that even though the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit for partition of holding and even though Section 11, C.P.C. did not apply, the general principle of res judicata would govern the case. 11. If on the above reasoning the Hon'ble High Court deemed it fit to apply the general principle of res judicata the facts of the instant case demand the application of the general principle in still grater measure. The law on the subject being what it is there can be no doubt that even if Chhatradhari Singh had been a party in the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court in the case referred to above, his pleadings would have been identical with those taken by his mother and the decision in the case would not have been different from what it was it was. The general principle off res judicata is, therefore, held applicable. 12. The appeal stands dismissed.