suit against the mother of plaintiff by the defendants, but, dispute involved in both the suits was common. Ignoring the final decree in the previous suit and the allotments made thereunder, it is seen, producing the preliminary decree, Ext.A15, and setting forth a case that the determination made under the preliminary decree would indicate that the mother of the plaintiff had right over the property covered by Ext.A1, the present suit was laid giving more emphasis to the boundaries of the properties described under that deed. Since the title of the plaintiff was disputed by the defendants in the present suit, an issue was also cast as to whether the plaintiff has title to sustain the decree of injunction applied for. On the materials placed, both the courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff has failed to establish title over the property and further that the property scheduled in the plaint formed part of property alloted to the defendants in the previous partition suit as covered by plot G in Ext.B6 plan prepared in the final decree proceedings. It was also noticed that in the suit filed by the defendants against the mother of the plaintiff, decree of injunction was granted in favour of the defendants in relation to plot G covered by Ext.B6 plan. The evidence of the commissioner, DW1, who had conducted a local
