JUDGMENT C.K. Prasad, J. 1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiff file the suit for declaration that he is the Bhusmiswami of land having total area of 9.187 acres left by his brother Shivinandan and the defendants, who are also brother or heir of predeceased brother of Shivnandan, have no right and title over the same. Further relief sought for by the plaintiff is, for recovery of possession and mesne profit. Civil Judge, Class II, Lakhnadon by its judgment and decree dated 20.10.82 decreed the suit. Defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 7 aggrieved by the same, preferred C. A. No 47-A 79 and Additional District Judge Seoni, by its judgment and decree dated 23rd September 1985 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below. Aggrieved by the same plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that his father Ganesh Prasad died in the year 1937 and after his death partition between the members of the joint family took place and the names of the brothers were registered in the revenue record. It is an admitted position that one of the brothers namely Shivnandan died issueless on 2.9.78 and his wife has pre-deceased him. It is an established fact that a proceeding was initiated against the aforesaid Shivnandan under the provisions of M. P. Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1980 and the Competent Authority under the said Act, after negativing the contention of Shivnandan and plaintiff that they are joint, declared 11.62 Acres of land of Shivnandan, to be surplus and directed for its vesting in the State. For setting aside the aforesaid order of the Competent Authority, Plaintiff Laxmi Prasad and Shivnandan filed Civil Suit No. 47-A /79 before the Civil Judge, Class II, Lakhnadon and by judgment and decree dated 20.10.82 the Civil Court held that the property of the plaintiff and Shivnandan was joint and the order of the Competent Authority declaring the land to be surplus is illegal and Shivnandan did not possess land in excess of the ceiling area. It is further an admitted position that Shivnandan before his death, on 2.9.78 executed 3 sale-deeds in favour of different persons. It is further an admitted position that Shivnandan before his death, on 2.9.78 executed 3 sale-deeds in favour of different persons. It is further an admitted position that after the death of Shivnandan, land recorded in his name, has been recorded in the name of the plaintiff and his other brothers and heirs and legal representative of his pre-deceased brother. 3. According to the plaintiff after the death of their father in the year 1937 partition took place between his brothers and mother and they started living separately. According to the plaintiff immediately after the partition he and Shivnandan, again constituted joint family and the properties falling in their share became his and that of Shivnandan's joint property. The case of the plaintiff further is that as Shivnandan died issueless he is alone, successor of his entire property. It has been further stated by the plaintiff that for convenience, he and late Shivnandan used to cultivate the land separately and by mistake lands have been separately recorded in the revenue records. It has been stated that in the suit filed by him and Shivnandan, it has been held by the Civil Court that their property is joint. Accordingly it has been contended that the plaintiff is the Bhumiswami of 9-187 hectares of land recorded in the name of Shivandan at the time of his death and no other heir of Shivandan has any right over the said property. Defendants are the brothers of Shivnandan or heir of his predeceased brother. According to the plaintiff after the death of Shivnandan the Revenue Inspector on 22.1.79, without notice to the plaintiff got the name of brothers of Shivnandan and heirs of pre-deceased brother of Shivnandan recorded in revenue records and taking advantage of the same defendants took possession of land and harvested the crop. In the aforesaid premises the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration that he is the only Bhumiswami of the land belonging to Shivnandan and for recovery of possession. He further sought decree of Rs. 1000/- for damage to the property and Rs. 300/- per annum as mesne profit. 4. Defendant no. 1 kewal Prasad, defendant No. 2 Balbhadra Prasad and defendant no. 5 Bhagwan Prasad filed their written statement and supported the case of the plaintiff but stated that they are not is possession of his disputed land and accordingly their names be deleted from the plaint. 300/- per annum as mesne profit. 4. Defendant no. 1 kewal Prasad, defendant No. 2 Balbhadra Prasad and defendant no. 5 Bhagwan Prasad filed their written statement and supported the case of the plaintiff but stated that they are not is possession of his disputed land and accordingly their names be deleted from the plaint. Defendant no. 4 Badri, defendant no. 3 Moolchand and defendant no. 6 Kamta Prasad have stated in their written statement that all the brothers have come in possession of their respective shares after partition which has taken place after the death of their father Ganesh and their names have been separately recorded in the revenue records. It has been further stated that plaintiff as also Late Shivnandan used to cultivate their land separately which fell to their share in partition and never became joint. It has also been stated that 65 acres of land which he got in partition was his own and out of which he has sold land on 23.6.91 by various sale deeds to different persons. It has been further stated by these defendants that on 7.3.84 Shivnandan had only 59 acres of land. It has also been stated that they are not aware of any proceeding being initiated against Shivnandan under the provisions of M. P. Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings, Act and the suit brought by the plaintiff and Shivnandan was to protect the land from being declared as surplus land. It has been further stated that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, in which they were not parties, are not binding on them and the same does not operate and resjudicata. It has been also stated that after the death of Shivnandan they being his heirs, are entitled to succeed to his property. It has been further stated that after the death of Shivnandan, the expenses of all the ceremony were spent jointly. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues including the issue, as to whether after the partition in 1937, plaintiff and Shivnandan became joint and their property became joint property and whether the earlier judgment of the Civil Court shall operate as resjudicata ? While answering the aforesaid issues, the trial court held that the plaintiff and Shivnandan became joint after partition in the year 1937 and the earlier judgment operates as resjudicata. While answering the aforesaid issues, the trial court held that the plaintiff and Shivnandan became joint after partition in the year 1937 and the earlier judgment operates as resjudicata. However, the lower appellate Court reversed the aforesaid findings and held that the plaintiff and Shivnandan did not became joint after 1937 and the earlier judgment of the Civil Court shall not operate as resjudicata. 6. By order dated 1.8.96 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- Whether the decision in C. S. No. 18-A/76 in which the appellant and late Shivnandan were co-plaintiffs will operate as resjudicata and bar a fresh decision on the same issue between the appellant and the respondent ?" "Whether in any case the appellant was entitled to declaration of title of possession in respect of 1/7 share over the suit property ? 7. It is relevant here to state that C. S. No. 18-A / 76 filed by the plaintiff and Late Shivnandan for a declaration that the order of the competent authority declaring the land as surplus is illegal as the plaintiff and Shivnandan constituted a joint family after partition and the Civil Court holding so, set aside the order of the competent authority declaring the land of Shivnandan to be surplus. 8. Shri Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that contesting defendants claiming interest through Shivnandan, they are bound by the principle of resjudicata and accordingly it has to be held that the plaintiff and Shivnandan became joint and Shivnandan having died issue-less, plaintiff shall exclusively succeed to his property. Section 11 of the C. P. C. reads as follows:- 11. No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX It is contended that the contesting defendants are laying their claim through Shivnandan and in the earlier suit it was held that they reunited defendants are bound by the earlier decision of the Civil Court, on the principle of resjudicata. XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX It is contended that the contesting defendants are laying their claim through Shivnandan and in the earlier suit it was held that they reunited defendants are bound by the earlier decision of the Civil Court, on the principle of resjudicata. It is to be borne in mind that plaintiff herein was co-plaintiff along with Shivnandan in the earlier suit. There was no dispute between the plaintiff herein and Shivnandan in the earlier suit about their re-union after partition in the year 1937. The rule of resjudicata is to confer finality of decision arrived at by the competent Court between the interested parties after genuine contest. True it is that the rule of resjudicata can be applied between the co-plaintiff also, but in my opinion, before the application of the rule of resjudicata, one has to see as to whether there was any conflict of interest between co-plaintiffs, the conflict was necessarily required to be decided to grant relief and the Court in the earlier proceeding, in fact, actually decided the question. 9. In the present case, I find that in the earlier suit there was no conflict of interest between the plaintiff and Shivnandan. They did not join issue amongst themselves on the question of re-union after partition. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the earlier judgment rendered by the Civil court shall not operate as resjudicata. I am fortified in my view from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmed and others Vs. Syed Meharban All and others A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 749 wherein it has been held as follows :- Now it is settled by a large number of decisions that for a judgment to operate as resjudicata between or among co-defendants, it is necessary to establish that (1) that was a conflict of interest between co-defendants; (2) that it was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the relief which the plaintiff claimed in the suit; and (3) that the Court actually decided the questions. 10. As stated earlier, one of the requirement for application of the principles of resjudicata is conflict of interest between the co-plaintiffs, which is missing here. Accordingly I have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the present case, the principle of resjudicata does not apply. 10. As stated earlier, one of the requirement for application of the principles of resjudicata is conflict of interest between the co-plaintiffs, which is missing here. Accordingly I have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the present case, the principle of resjudicata does not apply. Thus, the first substantial question of law formulated is answered against the plaintiff. 11. Addressing on the 2nd substantial question of law, Shri Tiwari submit that there was no re-union between the plaintiff and Shivnandan, even so, he being also the heir of Shivnandan, is entitled to 1/7 share of the suit property. Shri Dwivedi, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that plaintiff having not prayed for the same relief, same cannot be granted. In this connection Shri Tiwari has drawn my attention to Order 7, Rule 7 of the C. P. C. which reads as follows :- Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement. Shri Tiwari further submits that the Court is not precluded from granting the relief of 1/7 share, which the plaintiff is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his aforesaid submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Madhu Sudan Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 1991 M.P.L.J. 712 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage of the said judgment which reads as under:- 12. The facts clearly show that the appellant did not remain mum, he protested and demanded continuity in service and arrears of salary with increments by repeated letters, and then made clear averments in the plaint, evidence was also let to that effect. The facts clearly show that the appellant did not remain mum, he protested and demanded continuity in service and arrears of salary with increments by repeated letters, and then made clear averments in the plaint, evidence was also let to that effect. Therefore, there was no surprise to the respondent and the Court in such circumstances is well within its jurisdiction to grant relief, and a party should not be punished for clumsy or inartistic drafting of the plaint; it is always open to a Court to give the plaintiff such general or other relief as it deems just to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side. 12. Here in the present case, plaintiff claim exclusive right over the property of Shivnandan whereas contesting defendants assert their right being successor of Shivnandan. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is also one of the brothers of Shivnandan. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff is entitled to partition of 1/7 share of the disputed property. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to partition of 1/7 share of the property in dispute left by Shivnandan. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed