by retaining two cents of property with her. The earlier suit, which has culminated in Exhibit B2 judgment, was filed by the mother of the plaintiff against her son Pankajakshan. But, the said suit was filed only for injunction simplicitor and the question of title has not been adjudicated. Further, none of the parties to the present suit are claiming under the above said son Pankajakshan. They are claiming independent right over the property. As such, the question of application of either the doctrine of res judicata or Section 11 CPC would not come into play in the present case. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court went wrong in appreciating the legal position settled and entered into an erroneous finding. It is after the pronouncement of Exhibit B2 judgment, the respondent herein purchased the right of one of the daughters based on Exhibit A1 settlement deed. Thereby the respondent had altered his status by his own act by acquiring the right of one of the parties under Exhibit A1 settlement deed. Thereafter he cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. As such, the finding rendered by both the Trial Court and the
