A judgment in a suit is not binding on a person who was not a party to the suit, and a registered deed is presumed to be valid until proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT.:- This appeal is by the plaintiff, who lost in both the Courts below. The plaintiffs suit was for declaration of her 3 Annas 6 Gondas 2 Koras 2 Krantis share of the jote right in the land described in Schedule I, and for partition and for delivery of khas possession of the land described in Schedule II to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as `the suit land).

2. The material facts of her case, may be, briefly, stated as follows :

That one Montaz Ali Choudhury, was the owner of the jote right of the property described in Schedule I to the plaint. Montaz Ali died leaving behind him his widow, four daughters and a brother, Washil Ali by name. Washil Ali died leaving his widow, Jamila Khatun Choudhury (defendant No. 6) and a step brother, Najib Ali Choudhury (defendant No. 7). The plaintiff purchased the suit land from defendants Nos. 6 and 7 by two deeds, Ext. 1 dated 29-3-60 and Ext. 2 dated 27-1-55, respectively and that she was in possession thereof and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the rest of the land left behind by Montaz Ali.

3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement and contested the suit. They have admitted the genealogy. They have also admitted that Montaz Ali was the jotedar of the land described in Schedule I. Their case is that the three of the daughters of Montaz Ali, namely, Tarunnessa, Kulsuma and Altabunessa sold their interest to their sister Khatibunessa. Washil Ali transferred his interest in the land and the houses to his nephew Masukuddin Choudhury by executing a registered Hiba-bil-Ewaz dated 27-9-1945 and put him in possession thereof. On 29-6-1952 Masukuddin, Jubeda Khatun and Khatibunessa sold their interests in the land to defendant No. 1 and put her in possession thereof. Since their purchase, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been in possession of the land purchased by defendant No. 1 by constructing houses thereon. They have denied that the plaintiff or her predecessors-in-interest was ever in possession of the land.

4. After the written statement was filed, the plaintiff amended her plaint and added a new para being Para 6A. She has admitted that on 27-9-45 Washil Ali Choudhury executed a Hiba-bil-Ewaz in favour of Masukuddin Choudhury but she has alleged that defendant No. 6 filed Title Suit No. 42/53 in the Court of Munsiff, Karimganj for cancellation of the Hiba-bil-Ewaz and by a decree dated 31-5-58, the Court declared the said Hiba-bil-Ewaz to be null and void.

5. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, his judgment and decree were affirmed by the District Judge.

6. The point that falls for decision in this appeal is whether the suit land had been validly transferred by Washil Ali by Hiba-bil-Ewaz to Masukuddin on 27-9-45. If the answer be in the affirmative, we need not examine the genuineness or otherwise or value of Ext. 2 dated 27-1-55 and Ext. 1 dated 29-3-60 the deeds of purchase by which the plaintiff has claimed to have acquired title to the suit land from defendants Nos. 7 and 6, respectively; for in that case, Washil Ali having validly transferred the property to Masukuddin on 27-9-45, defendants Nos. 6 and 7, predecessors -in-interest of the plaintiff, could not have inherited the property from Washil Ali, and, as such, they could not have any saleable interest in the suit land, and the plaintiff could have acquired no title to the suit land under Exts. 1 and 2.

7. Ext. A dated 27-9-45 is the Hiba-bil-Ewaz. To prove that Ext. A was a void document, the plaintiff has relied solely on Ext. 6, the certified copy of the judgment in Title Suit No. 42/53 in which the Hiba-bil-Ewaz was declared to be void by the Munsiff, Karimganj. Ext. C is the certified copy of the plaint in Title Suit No. 42/53.

8. Shri K.L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents, referring to Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act, submits that Ext. 6 is irrelevant and not admissible. On the other hand Shri S.K. Sen, learned counse