The judgment and decree not inter parties but concerning the same property are admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act and are relevant and binding.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff Atma Ram (represented by his legal representatives) is not entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the shop on the ground that he purchased the same from one Dhanpat Rai son of Ramji Dass who was allegedly recorded as owner in possession. When the area was purchased, it was open land and the plaintiff Atma Ram is alleged to have raised construction after purchase on 25.2.1988 and since then he is claimed to be owner in possession. In support of the findings, the Courts below have placed reliance on a copy of the judgment dated 21.12.1995 Ex.D-4 between Vishvesh Chand etc. V/s. Arjun etc. It is pertinent to mention that Vishvesh Chand etc. who were plaintiffs in the earlier suit were the vendors of the defendant-respondents, whereas Arjun, Gopal and Ved Parkash were the sons of Dhanpat Rai who are apparently vendors of the plaintiff-appellants. The sale-deed dated 25.2.1988 with regard to the same property was at the centre of controversy in the earlier litigation, where the son of the plaintiff Atma Ram was party. Both the Courts below have highlighted this fact. The findings categorically went against Dhanpat Rai who was the vendor of the plaintiff and the same read as under:-

"17. Ex.D4 is the copy of judgment dated 21.12.95 between Vishvesh Chand etc. and Arjun etc. Vishvesh Chand etc. who were the plaintiffs of that suit are the vendors of the defendants, whereas Arjun, Gopal and Ved Parkash are the sons of Danpat Rai, vendor of the plaintiff. Satpal defendant No. 4 in that suit is the same person, who has purchased the suit land alongwith plaintiff Atma Ram. Defendant No. 5 Bhushan is son of plaintiff Atma Ram. Thus regarding the same sale-deed dated 25.2.1988, there was litigation between Vishvesh Chand etc. vendor of defendant on one side and Satpal, co-owner of Atma Ram plaintiff, Bhushan son of plaintiff Atma Ram and Arjun etc. sons of said Dhanpat Rai vendor of the plaintiff on the other side. The said suit was partly decreed and it was held that Satpal and Bhushan Kumar, who were claiming themselves to be owners on the basis of sale-deed dated 25.2.1988 regarding land measuring 26 sq. yards which is also in dispute in the present suit, are the bona fide purchasers and the suit regarding remaining land of Vishvesh Chand etc. was decreed. However, Ex.D-6 copy of judgment in appeal proves that the suit filed by Vishvesh Chand etc. was decreed regarding the entire land including the suit land, as the appeal was accepted and Satpal and Bhushan were even not held to be bona fide purchaser for consideration. Thus, it is proved that in the previous litigation, regarding the entire land including the suit land, Satpal one of the co-owner and Bhushan son of the plaintiff could not succeed and the sale-deed dated 25.2.1988 was set aside and held to be not binding on the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. In the said previous litigation, it was held that when Dhanpat Rai sold the land vide registered sale-deed dated 25.2.1988 at that time, the land had already been partitioned and Dhanpat Rai was not the owner of the suit land."

2. It is further appropriate to mention that one Sat Pal co-owner was also a party in the earlier litigation who remained unable to prove that he was a bona fide purchaser and similarly, plaintiff Atma Ram was also not held to be a bona fide purchaser. The aforementioned judgment was found to be equally binding on the plaintiff-appellants being co-owners. Both the Courts below rejected the argument advanced on behalf of plaintiff Atma Ram that earlier judgment and decree Exs. D-4 and D-6 were not binding on him as he was not party albeit his sons were. The basic reason given was that the plaintiff Atma Ram remained silent till the filing of the suit