JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - These are two connected second appeals against the judgment and decree dated June 24, 1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 2. The suit was filed by Ganesh Dutt claiming to be a lunatic under Section 229-B/202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act through his guardian Smt. Sarupa. He alleged that he had been a lunatic since birth and was completely disabled physically and mentally. His father Ramgopal who had dies in 1956 had been physically disabled for the last 20 years of his life on account of leprosy and actually Smt. Sarupa had been looking after the work of cultivation. The names of defendants first set and second set had wrongly been entered as Sirdars over the land in suit jointly in Schedule 'B' and of first set in Schedule 'A'. It was also claimed that in a previous suit under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the names of defendants had been ordered to be deleted from revenue papers but some how Amaldramad had not been made. The relief of declaration and ejectment of defendant was claimed. 3. In the second connected case Smt. Sarupa is the plaintiff and she alleged that she was the sole Bhumidhar in possession that the land had been given to her by Sheo Sankatha Tewari on May 23, 1950 but defendant had been entered in revenue papers as Sirdar. 4. Defendants challenged the claims alleging that plaintiff in both the suits were not Bhumidhars nor in possession that Ganesh Dutt is not a lunatic and Ram Gopal was not a leper. Sheo Sankatha Tewari who was claimed by the plaintiff to be blind was alleged not to be so. They themselves claimed Sirdari rights as having been sub-tenant of the land prior to the date of vesting recorded as occupants in 1356 Fasli and in actual culutivatory possession in 1359 Fasli. They also claimed that suit No. 660 of 1958 decided on April 17, 1961 by the Additional Munsif and appeal No. 421 of 1961 decided on April 8, 1963 by the Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi had held that plaintiffs are not Bhumidhars and defendant are Sirdars and these decisions would apply as res judicata. 5. The learned trial court as well as the Additional Commissioner in appeal held that the principle of res judicata would not apply as claimed by defendant. 5. The learned trial court as well as the Additional Commissioner in appeal held that the principle of res judicata would not apply as claimed by defendant. Findings were given on the merits of other issued involved and these went against the defendants. The suits were decreed. 6. In second appeal, leanred counsel for the defendant-appellants has cited ruling of the Hon'ble High Court in 1967 R.D. 56 in support of his contention that the general doctrine of res judicata would apply to the judgments of the civil courts mentioned and, therefore, the lower courts were not entitled to go into the merits of the dispute. The rulings concern a case under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which had been initiated on March 20, 1957. The defendant filed a suit on July 18, 1957 in the civil court for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff in the other suit from interfering with his possession of the disputed plots. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Munsif with the finding that the plaintiff was not the executive Sirdar of the plots. No appeal was filed against the decision of the Civil court. 7. The plaintiff in the civil suit, however appealed against the decision of the Assistant Collector in the partition suit and a decision was then given in his favour that the land belonged exclusively to him. In the ruling cited above, the Hon'ble High Court held wrong the plea that since the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit for partition of holding its judgment could not operate as res judicata under Section 11 of the C.P.C. Their lordship found that the section was not applicable but the case was governed by the general doctrine of res judicata. Even though the requirement of section 11, C.P.C. had not been satisfied the general principle would apply even though the suit filed before the Additional Munsif had been filed later than the revenue suit. It was the date of decision which was held to count and not the date of institution. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants claimed that the present case was fully covered by the above rulings. 9. It was the date of decision which was held to count and not the date of institution. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants claimed that the present case was fully covered by the above rulings. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court where it has been mentioned that the Allahabad Munsif had acted within his jurisdiction in giving his decision in the suit before himself. In the present case, counsel argued, the civil courts concerned had acted beyond their jurisdiction in view of the fact that the Gaon Sabha and the State were parties which had mandatorily to be impleaded in any suit for declaration of title and since they had not been parties in the civil suit, the decision therein in respect of title was beyond jurisdiction. 10. In support of this contention two rulings have been cited. The first is of the Hon'ble High Court in 1970 R.D. 216. It was held here that it the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction had claimed any relief on behalf of the Gaon Sabha or the State or was deemed to have done so having regard to the facts of the case the suit would lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue court. The second ruling is reported in 1973 R.D. 328. Here it was held that declaration of Sirdar rights in the absence of necessary parties such as Government or the Gaon Sabha would be violative of statutory provisions of law. 11. The two ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondents can at the mots be held to show that the judgment of the civil courts concerned were wanting in legal merit. It cannot be claimed that they were without jurisdiction. The court of law may give a decision in a case in ignorance of the fact that certain necessary parties have not been impleaded. The judgment would be wanting in legal merit and therefore, would be liable to be upset either in review by itself or in appeal by a higher court if this fact was brought to light. It would however not imply that the court had acted beyond jurisdiction in giving the judgment. The question of jurisdiction and that of the legal merit of a judgment are entirely distinct. It would however not imply that the court had acted beyond jurisdiction in giving the judgment. The question of jurisdiction and that of the legal merit of a judgment are entirely distinct. It is therefore, clear that even if it be granted that the Additional Munsif and the Additional Civil Judge had made a pronouncement of title in ignorance of the fact that certain necessary parties had not been impleaded by the plaintiff it cannot be said that they had acted beyond jurisdiction. The ruling cited by learned counsel do nor therefore, help him. 12. Even if, however, the plea is accepted for the sake or argument a perusal of the judgment of the Additional Munsif and the Civil Judge shows that they had also pronounced on the merits of the dispute in respect of the alleged disability of Sankatan Tewari and Ramgopal. A clear finding was given in respect of both these person that they were not suffering form disability as defined in S. 157 of Act I of 1951. It has not been seriously contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the court below had no jurisdiction to give a finding on thus point. Thus if the question of disability is held to have been decided already by courts of competent jurisdiction, they are binding on the parties on the general principle of res judicata as held in the ruling cited by appellants. 13. This is the crucial point in the two present cases. The original tenants having been held not to have suffered from any disability the cases of the plaintiff fall. 14. The appeal are allowed and the orders of the lower courts set aside. The suits shall stand dismissed. 15. This order will govern Section As. Nos. 373 and 374 of 1974-75/Varanasi.