submit that the Deed of partnership itself contained a covenant restraining Rakmaji from retiring from the frm. Be that as it may. Satyavan independently tried his luck by fling Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 2000 which clearly contained a prayer for cancellation of the Deeds of Retirement. In the subsequent suit fled by the other members of Undre Family, there was a prayer for seeking a declaration that the Deeds of Retirement was executed in violation of the terms and conditions of the Deed of Partition and that therefore the same is not binding on them. Thus, both the suits involved the issue of validity of Deeds of Retirement. That issue came to be decided in Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 2000, in which several members of Undre Family were also impleaded as party Defendants. Since they had common interest alongwith Satyawan in Regular Civil Suit No.774 of 2000, they were infact co-plaintifs in the suit as rightly observed by the frst Appellate Court, which has branded them as ‘ defacto plaintifs ’. After the Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 774 of 2000 attained fnality on account of withdrawal of the Second Appeal, it was not open to the Undre Family members to fle another suit seeking same prayers.
