Probate as conclusive proof and appropriation of payments first to interest shaped the decree and rejected the procedural bar.

Probate granted by a competent testamentary court was treated as conclusive proof of the will's validity, due execution and the testator's testamentary capacity, so the defendants could not later impeach the will. The suit was not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC because the defendants failed to prove identity of cause of action by producing the earlier plaints, and separate claims arising from the dissolution deed were not required to be combined. On appropriation, payments made without a debtor's specific direction were applied first to interest and then to principal, which justified enhancement of the decree. The appeal failed and the cross-objection succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the probate of the will barred challenge to its validity and execution; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (iii) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to appropriate the payments first towards interest and obtain enhancement of the decree.

Issue (i): Whether the probate of the will barred challenge to its validity and execution.

Analysis: Probate granted by a competent testamentary court operates as a judgment in rem and is conclusive evidence of the validity and due execution of the will and of the testamentary capacity of the testator. Once probate had been proved and admitted in evidence, the defendants could not impeach the genuineness of the will.

Conclusion: The challenge to the will failed and the probate was binding against the defendants.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The bar under Order 2, Rule 2 applies only where the later suit is shown to arise from the same cause of action as the earlier suit and the omitted relief could have been claimed therein. The defendants did not produce the plaints of the earlier suits, so the identity of cause of action was not established. The Court further held that where multiple suits are filed simultaneously on the same day in the same court, the technical bar does not operate in the manner contended, and consolidation is the proper course. The deed of dissolution also gave rise to distinct causes of action, so the claims were not required to be combined in one suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to appropriate the payments first towards interest and obtain enhancement of the decree.

Analysis: Under the parties' arrangement and the general rule of appropriation, payments made without a debtor's specific direction are first applied to interest and only thereafter to principal. The monthly instalments could not be appropriated by the trial court towards principal in the first instance. On correct appropriation, the decretal amount increased.

Conclusion: The cross-objection succeeded and the decree was enhanced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the cross-objection succeeded, and the decree was modified upward with costs adjusted accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Probate of a will granted by a competent testamentary court is conclusive proof of its validity and due execution, and a technical bar under Order 2, Rule 2 cannot be sustained unless the defendant proves identity of cause of action by producing the earlier plaints; payments made without appropriation are applied first to interest.

---