JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.6.2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda by which a revision preferred by Opp. Party No. 3 was allowed declaring her Bhumidhar of Plot Nos. 333 and 369 of Khata No. 195 to the extent of one half share.
2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 3.
3. Learned Counsel for petitioners urged that Opp. Party No. 3 was not the widow of Holla, Son of Babauna and she did not inherit property of Holla. He further urged that petitioners purchased land in dispute through a sale deed dated 14.7.1972 from Jauhariya, who was recorded in the revenue record. It was further urged that sale deed was executed by Jauhariya in 1972 and Opp. Party No. 3 has not claimed any right in the land in dispute at that time. He also urged that the order passed against Jauhariya by consolidation authorities which was affirmed by the judgment of this Court dated 9.4.1987 rendered in Writ Petition No. 19055 of 1985 between Jauhariya and Opp. Party No. 3-Shiv Kumariya will not affect petitioners' right as they purchased the land in dispute before said judgment and their names were recorded in the Basic Year.
4. In reply to the same, learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 3 urged that the orders of consolidation authorities affirmed by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19055 of 1985 between transferor of petitioners, i.e., Jauhariya and Shiv Kumariya will be binding on the petitioners inasmuch as Shiv Kumariya was widow of Holla, Son of Babauna and the property belongs to Babauna, who had two sons Jauhariya and Holla. He further urged that the theory of remarriage of Shiv Kumariya setup by Jauhariya-transferor of petitioners was already disbelieved by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 19055 of 1985. It was also urged that the judgment of this Court is binding upon the petitioners who have also setup a theory of remarriage before consolidation authorities. Lastly, he urged that the order impugned in this writ petition was rightly passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accordance with law.
5. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. In view of finding of fact recorded in the orders of consolidation proceedings between Jauhariya and Shiv Kumariya, it has finally been settled upto the High Court that the property was coming from Babauna in which Jauhariya and Shiv Kumariya have one half share each. Theory of remarriage of Shiv Kumariya was already disbelieved and she continued to be cotenant to the extent of one half share each. The only question requires to be considered is whether earlier judgment of the High Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 19055 of 1985 is binding on petitioners? In this regard Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure is relevant which is being quoted below for ready reference:
11. Res Judicata.-No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Explanation I- The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
Explanation II- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III-The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI-Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
Explanation VII- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
Explanation VIII-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.
7. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it that no Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
8. In the present case, petitioners are claiming rights through Jauhariya, who was litigating on the ground that Opp. Party No. 3 remarried and lost right as widow of Holla in the earlier proceedings, and fought upto the High Court in which petitioners' transferor-Jauhariya lost 'and the issue was finally determined that Opp. Party No. 3 is widow of Holla, the other son of Babauna, i.e., Jauhariya and Opp. Party No. 3 is entitled to the extent of one half share each. This final judgment determining the issue of inheritance of Opp. Party No. 3 became final. Though petitioners were not party to the earlier proceeding in which issue of inheritance of Opp. Party No. 3 was finally decided by the High Court, but the final judgment of the High Court is binding upon petitioners. In this regard a judgment of Apex Court Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah would be noticeable wherein Apex Court has held that Judgment not inter parties is also admissible in evidence in certain cases.
9. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the Apex Court are being reproduced below:
9. In our view, this contention is clearly contrary to the rulings of this Court as well as those of the Privy Council. In Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narayan Devji Knago speaking on behalf of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that a judgment not inter partes is admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as evidence of an assertion of a right to property in dispute. A contention that judgments other than those falling under Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act were not admissible in evidence was expressly rejected. Again B.K. Mukherjea, J. (as he then was) speaking on behalf of a Bench of four learned Judges in Sital Das v. Sant Ram held that a previous judgment not inter partes was admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as a 'transaction' in which a right to property was 'asserted' and 'recognised'. In fact, much earlier, Lord Lindley held in the Privy Council in' Dinamoni v. Brajmohini (1992) ILR 29 Cal 190 (198) (PC) that a previous judgment not inter partes was admissible in evidence under Section 13 to show who the parties were, what the lands in dispute were and who was declared entitled to retain them. The criticism of the judgment in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini and Ram Ranjan Chakerbati v. Ram Narian Singh (1895) ILR 22 Cat 533 (PC) by Sir John Woodroffe in his commentary on the Evidence Act (1931, p.181) was not accepted by Lord Blanesburgh in Collector of Gorkahpur v. Ram Sunder AIR 1934 PC 157 : 61 IA 286.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and hold that the TTD could rely on the judgment in OS 51/37 as evidence to prove its title in regard to the suit property, even though the present plaintiff was not a party to that suit. Point No. 1 is held accordingly against the respondent.
10. This Court is of the firm view that the petitioners are claiming title through Jauhariya and as such the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition is binding on petitioners, though they were not party and Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly held that petitioners are entitled to get ½ share of Jauhariya and Opp. Party No. 3 is also entitled to get ½ share. My this view is further supported by the judgments Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narayan Devji Knago AIR 1965 SC 1165 Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander and the judgment of Privy Council in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini (1992) ILR 29 Cal. 190 (198) (PC).
11. This Court does not agree with the argument of learned Counsel for petitioners that as petitioners were recorded separately in the Basic year record on the basis of sale deed executed by Jauhariya, their rights will not be affected by the judgment of the High Court between Jauhariya and Shiv Kumariya-Opp. Party No. 3. Once it has been established that Jauhariya was entitled to one half share only in the land in dispute, he could transfer valid title of one half share separately. Petitioners could not be declared Bhumidhar of entire land in dispute transferred to them by Jauhariya more than his one half share in land in dispute. Deputy Director of Consolidation, while passing the impugned order, taken into consideration all evidence on record as well as relevant law on the point and rightly held that Jauhariya was entitled to one half share in the land in dispute and thus petitioners shall also be entitled to one half share in the land in dispute.
12. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.
13. No order as to cost.