Prior adjudication and conditional redemption bar broader property claims, while limiting relief to the proved share and redemption extent.

A prior adjudication by a competent court on the title to property directly in issue binds the parties in later litigation, so the plaintiff could not relitigate claims to the shop, godown, or related mesne profits. The text also states that property acquired with the proceeds of the earlier decree could not be recovered beyond the share proved in the plaintiff's favour, limiting relief to that extent. On redemption, the plaintiff was recognised as entitled only to redeem 7/40ths on payment of the proportionate amount within the time fixed by the decree; default would foreclose the redemption right. The decree below was therefore upheld in substance but modified to confine relief to the limited share and redemption right recognised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff was barred from claiming the shop and godown and the mesne profits by reason of the prior decree on title. (ii) Whether the plaintiff could claim the properties purchased with the proceeds of the earlier decree, and to what extent. (iii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the property on payment of a proportionate amount, failing which the right to redeem would stand foreclosed.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff was barred from claiming the shop and godown and the mesne profits by reason of the prior decree on title.

Analysis: The earlier decision of the competent court directly determined the title to the item of property then in dispute, and that determination was binding on the plaintiff in the present suit. The prior court was not deciding the general effect of the gift, but its finding on the property then in issue operated against the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was estopped from claiming the shop and godown and the mesne profits relating to that property.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff could claim the properties purchased with the proceeds of the earlier decree, and to what extent.

Analysis: The properties in question had been acquired with the proceeds of the earlier decree, and the former decree therefore barred the plaintiff from asserting a right to those proceeds. At the same time, the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled only to the share proved in her favour.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was denied recovery of those properties beyond the limited share recognized by the Court.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the property on payment of a proportionate amount, failing which the right to redeem would stand foreclosed.

Analysis: The repurchase was treated as giving rise to a right of redemption to the extent of 7/40ths. That right was conditional upon payment of the proportionate amount within the time fixed by the decree, with foreclosure following default.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to redeem 7/40ths on payment of the specified amount within six months, failing which the right to redeem would be foreclosed.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the lower court was upheld in substance but modified to grant the plaintiff limited relief only to the extent of the share and redemption rights recognized by the Court, with the remaining claims rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior adjudication by a competent court on a matter directly in issue binds the parties in later litigation, and a redemption right may be enforced only to the extent proved and upon compliance with the condition attached to it.

---