The judgment emphasized the relevance of non-inter parties judgments under the Evidence Act and the scrutiny of evidence to determine possession and title of the property.

1. This appeal by the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff arises from a suit for injunction filed before the Munsiff, Ottapalam. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff and that decision was confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge.

2. The suit property is that blocked in S. Nos. 210/3 and 211 in Kadambazhipram Village. It belonged to Kongat Valiya Nair. In 1881 he demised it on kanam to one Krishnan Moothan and by successive assignments evidenced by Ext. A2 of 1919 and Ext. A3 of 1930 the rights of Krishnan Moothan devolved on the plaintiff's father. By Ext. A4 of 1933 the kanam was renewed. In Ext. A13 partition made in the plaintiff's family the property was set apart to the share of the plaintiff. In 1961 the second defendant, whose mother is the first defendant, trespassed upon the property and cut and removed timber saying that the property belonged to the first defendant. It was on these allegations that the plaintiff prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon the property and interfering with his peaceful possession of the same.

3. The contest of the defendants is confined to the property blocked is Survey No. 211. They denied the plaintiff's title to and possession of that property. They admitted that the property belonged to Kongat Valiya Nair. According to them he demised the property on kanam to one Unni Ezhuthassan in 1912, Ext. B3 being a copy of the kanam document. Unni Ezhuthassan and another person executed a kanam document in respect of the property to one Kuttan Moothan in 1913, Ext. B21 being a copy of that document. After Kuttan Moothan's death his rights in the property by the provisions of a will executed by him devolved upon one Kunha. By assignment her rights devolved on the first defendant. Thereafter, according to the defendants, the first defendant is in possession of the property.

4. The decrees of the lower courts as they now stand negative the claims of the plaintiff for both survey numbers, 210/3 and 211. As regards the property blocked in] S. No. 210/3 the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiff and his possession of the same. In such circumstances the lower court should have gratited a decree to the plaintiff at least in respect of that property.

5. As regards the property comprised in S. No. 211 relief by way of injunction can be granted to the plaintiff only if he was in possession of it as alleged. Even if he had title to it unless it is proved that he was in possession also as alleged injunction cannot be granted.

6. Both the courts have freely used the findings in the judgments in a previous suit, O. S.109 of 1954, to show that the first defendant had title to and possession of the property, Exts. 816 and B19 are respectively copies of the trial and appellate court judgments in that suit. That was a suit for injunction filed by the present first defendant against the plaintiff's brother's son regarding this property and another item. Therein the trial court found that the present first defendant had title to and possession of the property and that was confirmed in appeal. That is a non-inter parties judment, plaintiff not being a party to that suit.

7. I shall now consider the relevancy of non-inter parties judgments which has been the subject of some controversy. The Evidence Act does not make a distinction between judgments inter partes and judgments non inter' parties. It only says as to when judgments are relevant whether they are inter parties or non-inter parties. S.43 of the Evidence Act says that judgments other than, those mentioned in S.40, 41 and 42 are irrelavant unless the existence of those judgments is a fact in issue or they are relevant under some other provisions of the Act. S.40, 41 and 42 read thus:

"40. The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevent fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cogni