THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.17212 of 2010 ORDER: (per, Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 03.04.2008 in L.G.C. No.17 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court established under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’), declaring the title and ownership of respondents 2 to 5 herein/applicants to the application schedule property (schedule property), consequently declaring the writ Petitioners and Respondents 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 herein (respondents 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 in the L.G.C.) as land grabbers; and eventually directing to vacate the schedule property and hand over vacant possession to respondents 2 to 5 herein/applicants. 2. The respondents 2 to 5 herein were the applicants in the L.G.C. and the Writ Petitioners were respondents 8, 9 and 10. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in this judgment will be referred to as the Writ Petitioners and Respondents 2 to 5 as the applicants. The other respondents will be referred to as they are arrayed in this Writ Petition. 3. At the outset it may be mentioned that earlier the Special Court dismissed the L.G.C. by orders dated 31-10-2003, against which the applicants filed W.P.No.25379 of 2004. This Court having regard to a subsequent judgment and decree in O.S.No.217 of 1998, dated 04-06- 2005 set aside the said orders in the L.G.C. dated 31-10-2003 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered by the Special Court, providing opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence and after considering the same, allowed the L.G.C. by judgment and decree dated 03-04-2008. 4. It may also be relevant to mention at this stage that respondents 10 to 12 herein challenged the said Judgment and Decree dated 03- 04-2008 in W.P.No.9237 of 2008. The said respondents and the applicants settled the matter by entering into compromise and accordingly the said Writ Petition was dismissed insofar as the applicants are concerned in terms of the compromise and as against the Writ Petitioners herein and the respondents 6 to 8 the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Writ Petitioners therefore filed this Writ Petition challenging the same orders in L.G.C., dated 3.4.2008. 5. The brief facts are as follows :- The applicants filed L.G.C. No.17 of 1997 seeking to declare their title in respect of an extent of Ac.6.22 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.67 of Neknampur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the Writ Petitioners and other respondents as land grabbers. The case of the applicants was that they were the legal heirs of one Mohammad Jahangir and inherited from him the said land in the year 1975. One, late Mohammed Sharfuddin was the original owner of the said land. Initially, the said land was mortgaged to Mohammed Jahangir, who later purchased the same under a sale deed dated 01.06.1957. Late Mohammed Sharfuddin was the husband of Smt. Khaja Bee (since died shown as the 8th respondent herein), and father of Mohammed Yousufuddin (since died shown as the 9th respondent herein). As the said deceased respondents 8 and 9, at one stage, disputed the title of the applicants, the applicants filed suit O.S.No.53 of 1987 against them on the file of the District Munsif, West and South, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for declaration of title. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 10.06.1987. Thus, the case of the applicants was that they are the rightful owners of the schedule property. The applicants later noticed that the name of 6th respondent herein was recorded in the revenue records and as such they made an application on 16.12.1996 to the revenue authorities for mutation and incorporation of their names in the place of 6th respondent herein. In the meanwhile, respondents 10 and 11 encroached the plaint schedule property on 19.12.1996 and converted the same into house plots without any right, title or interest in the schedule property. The 12th respondent herein allegedly purchased the land under sale deeds dated 22.06.1996 and 7.06.1996-Exs.B.1 and B.2 from respondents 6 and 7 herein, who were said to be the G.P.A. holders of the writ petitioners. Contending that the writ petitioners and respondents 6 to 12 herein conspired together and grabbed the land, the applicants filed the L.G.C., and sought for a declaration and possession of the schedule property. 6. The 7th respondent herein filed counter and the same was adopted by the 6th respondent herein. Similarly, the 12th respondent herein also filed counter and the same was adopted by respondents 10 and 11. Writ Petitioner No.1 filed counter and the same was adopted by the Petitioners 2 and 3 and also the deceased respondent No.8 herein. 7. According to 7th respondent herein, the schedule property was mortgaged for a sum of Rs.650/- by the original owner Mohammed Sharfuddin to Mohammed Jahangir for a period of three years from 1954. Mohammed Jahangir was entitled to cultivate the land as a mortgagee and possession would be redelivered to Mohammed Sharfuddin on payment of mortgage amount. The 6th respondent herein entered into an agreement of sale dated 5.05.1985 for purchasing Ac.4.20 gts., and remaining extent of Ac.2.03 guntas was in occupation of one Krupakar, who allegedly purchased from its original owner Mohammed Sharfuddin in the year 1973-74. The name of Mohammed Jahangir was recorded in the revenue records as an occupant. Similarly, one Nasiruddin claimed to have purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 from Mohammed Jahangir under a registered sale deed dated 16.02.1974. Therefore, 6th respondent paid money to Nasiruddin and purchased the said extent of land under a registered agreement of sale in favour of 7th respondent herein. Similarly, one Krupakar was also claiming to have purchased Ac.4.20 guntas from Mohammed Sharfuddin. The 6th respondent herein settled the matter with all the claimants and obtained a registered power of attorney from the writ petitioners and respondents 8 and 9 herein, who are the legal heirs of Mohammed Sharfuddin, for an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas out of the total extent of Ac.6.20 guntas. The 7th respondent herein obtained G.P.A. for the remaining extent of the schedule property. Thus respondents 6 and 7 are not only the attorneys but also the purchasers of the entire extent of land for consideration. It was further contended that the decree in O.S.No.53 of 1987 was obtained by fraud by the applicants. It was further contended that these respondents executed registered sale deeds in favour of 12th respondent in respect of the entire property and respondents 10 and 11 herein are in possession of the land as developers of the land of 12th respondent. Thus, these respondents pleaded that they were not land grabbers. 8. The stand of the Respondents 12, 10 and 11 herein was that the decree in O.S.No.53 of 1987 was obtained by fraud, hence would not bind them. It was contended that there was no sale transaction between Mohammed Jahangir and Mohd Sharfuddin. The legal heirs of Mohammed Sharfuddin had appointed respondents 6 and 7 as their attorneys and the said attorneys executed registered sale deed dated 22.06.1996 in respect of an extent of Ac.4.20 guntas and the another extent of Ac.2.02 guntas by a registered sale deed dated 7.06.1996. Thus the 12th Respondent is the owner and possessor thereof and respondents 10 and 11 are in permissive possession through him. 9. The writ petitioners in their counter, while admitting that Mohammed Sharfuddin was the pattadar and possessor of the schedule property, denied that the land was mortgaged to Mohammed Jahangir. They also denied that Mohammed Jahangir purchased the land from Mohammed Sharfuddin under document dated 1.06.1957 and the said Mohammed Sharfuddin died on 16.07.1978. The documents referred to by the applicants were forged and fabricated and they were not aware how the name of Mohammed Jahangir was entered in the possession column of Pahanies 1962 etc., despite the name of Mohammed Sharfuddin was entered for several years. The decree obtained in O.S.No.53 of 1987 was not binding on them. The said judgment is in personam but not in rem. The said judgment and decree was obtained by the applicants by fraud and misrepresentation and the applicants could not claim the property on the basis of the entries in the revenue records. Respondents 6 and 7, and 10 to 12 could not claim any right title and possession over the property based on the forged and fabricated documents. The writ petitioners and respondents 8 and 9 never executed GPAs in favour of respondents 6 and 7 and their signatures and thumb impressions on GPAs were forged and fabricated. 10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether the applicants have title to the application schedule property? 2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true and valid? 3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII/1982 4. To what relief? 11. The applicants adduced evidence through PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.17. RWs.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondents and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked on their behalf. Writ petitioner No.1 was examined as RW.3 and marked Exs.B.51 and B.52. 12. The Special Court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, on issue No.1 held that the applicants proved their title and ownership over the schedule property and on issue No.2 held that the writ petitioners and the other respondents failed to establish their title, thereby the rival title set up by the said persons is not true valid and binding. On issue No.3 the Special Court held that the possession of the third respondent herein and the writ petitioners is illegal and without title, and therefore, declared them as land grabbers. On issue No.4 the Special Court directed the writ petitioners and respondents 6, 7 and 10 to 12 herein to vacate the schedule property and hand over the vacant possession to the applicants failing which the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer should evict them and hand over the possession to the applicants. It is against this judgment the writ petitioners have filed this writ petition. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners. The learned counsel would contend that the Special Court was not right in holding that the applicants established their title to the schedule property. He would contend that the Special Court committed an error in accepting the Judgment and Decree rendered in O.S.No.53 of 1987 dated 10-06- 1987 marked as Ex.A8 and Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.217 of 1998 dated 04-06-2005 marked as Ex.A17 and they are not judgments in rem and since the Writ Petitioners were not parties to the said decrees the same are not binding on them. He would therefore contend that the judgment of the Special Court is liable to be set aside. 14. The applicants, in order to establish their title, mainly relied upon Ex.A.8-certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.53 of 1987 dated 10.06.1987 on the file of the District Munsif, West and South Ranga Reddy District and Ex.A.17-certified copy of the judgment dated 4.06.2005 in O.S.No.217 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. They also relied upon Ex.A.2- sesala pahani revenue record of 1955-58 in which the name of Mohammed Sharfuddin and Mohammed Jahangir was recorded in respect of an extent of Ac.6.22 guntas of land in S.No.67; Exs.A.3 to A.6-pahanies in respect of an extent of Ac.6.22 guntas showing both the said names for the years 1959-60, 1965-66, 1970-71 and 1973-74; Ex.A.7-pahani for the year 1993-94 was for an extent of Ac.6.22 guntas. 15. Ex.A.2 = Ex.B.5-Sesala Pahani discloses that the schedule property was mortgaged by Mohammed Sharfuddin to Mohammed Jahangir, and Mohammed Jahangir should vacate the said property after payment of mortgage amount and that any claim made or objections raised either by Mohammed Sharfuddin or his legal heirs present and future over the same would be null and void. Thus the mortgage was conditional, which could be redeemed only on repayment of mortgage amount. No evidence had been adduced by the writ petitioners that the amount had been repaid and the mortgage had been redeemed. On the other hand the said document discloses that Mohammad Sharfuddin sold the land to Mohammad Jehangir. 16. Ex.A.8 is the decree dated 10.06.1987 in O.S.No.53 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Hyderabad West and South Ranga Reddy District. The 9th respondent herein (respondent No.7 in L.G.C) and Fatima Bee, who were the son and wife of the original owner Mohammed Sharfuddin, were the defendants in the said suit. The said suit was for a declaration to declare the applicants as owners and possessors of the schedule property. The said suit was decreed and the applicants were declared as the owners and possessors of the application schedule property. 17. Ex.A.17 is the judgment and decree in O.S.No.217 of 1998 dated 4.06.2005 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The said suit was filed by 12th respondent herein (respondent No.5 in L.G.C.) against the applicants and the said Yusufuddin and Fatima Bee. It may be mentioned that 12th respondent herein claimed ownership as a purchaser by virtue of sale deeds Ex.B.1 and B.2 executed by the GPAs of the writ petitioners. In the said suit, the decree and judgment passed in Ex.A.8 was challenged alleging that the decree was obtained by fraud. The suit was dismissed upholding the decree passed in Ex.A.8 in favour of the applicants. Thus the applicants were found to be the owners of the schedule property. 18. The first applicant was examined as PW.2 and her brother was examined as PW.1, as a G.P.A. holder on behalf of the applicants. Although, the first applicant was subjected to cross-examination, it was not elicited from her that Mohammed Sharfuddin repaid the amount to Mohd Jahangir and redeemed the mortgage. On the other hand, the eleventh respondent herein (respondent No.2 in L.G.C.) in his cross- examination admitted that Ex.B.5 = Ex.A.2-Sesala pahani, shows that Mohammed Sharfuddin mortgaged the schedule property to Mohammed Jahangir in the year 1952; that the property was sold to Mohammed Jahangir in the year 1957 and that Mohammed Jahangir was shown as occupier and cultivator. The Writ Petitioners could not establish that the title remained with Sharfuddin by redeeming the mortgage. 19. The documentary evidence Exs.A.2, A.8 and A.17 coupled with the revenue records filed as Exs.A.3 to A.7 and the oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and the admissions of RW.1 was rightly appreciated by the Special Court which would go to show that Mohammed Jahangir became the owner of the schedule property and the applicants being his legal heirs established their title. The Special Court having regard to the said documentary evidence and the oral evidence of PWs.1, 2 and the admissions of RW.1, rightly disbelieved the other evidence and rightly held that the applicants proved their title to the schedule property. 20. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners would however contend that they were not parties to the suits O.S.No.53 of 1987 and O.S.No.217 of 1998 and judgments under Ex.A.8 and A.17, therefore, would not bind them as the said judgments were not judgments in rem. It is true that the writ petitioners were not parties to the said suits but indisputably respondent 8 and 9, who were the mother and brother of the writ petitioners were parties to the said suits. O.S.No.53 of 1987 was filed for declaration of title and possession, and O.S.No.217 of 1998 was filed challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.53 of 1987 on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud. It may be mentioned that 12th respondent herein having taken the stand that the judgment in O.S.No.53 of 1987 was obtained by fraud, could not establish the said allegation and the suit filed by him on the said plea was dismissed. The writ petitioners also having taken the same stand in the Special Court did not establish the fraud by adducing evidence. 21. The question whether any declaration as to title in favour of a party in an earlier suit is admissible and can be relied upon as evidence in a subsequent suit even though the plaintiff or the defendant was not a party to the earlier suit, was examined by the Apex Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah[1]. In the said case, the respondent therein filed a suit against the appellant therein for grant of permanent injunction, later converted the suit into one of possession. The suit was dismissed holding that the respondent therein/plaintiff had proved neither title nor possession. The appellate Court also took the same view. Both the courts relied upon a judgment rendered in an earlier suit filed by the TTD against a Mutt, viz., Hathiramji Mutt wherein the Court had declared the title of the TTD to the property. However, the High Court allowed the said appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff therein observing that the suit was to be treated as one based on ‘possessory title’, and that the plaintiff could recover possession from the TTD unless the TTD proved title. In the appeal preferred by the TTD against the said judgment to the Apex Court, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the earlier judgment was rendered in a suit filed by the TTD against Hathiramji Mutt and that the plaintiff was not a party thereto and hence any declaration as to title in favour of the TTD given therein was not admissible or binding. Examining the said contention, the Apex Court held as follows. “It was argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent that the earlier judgment in O.S. 51 of 1937 dated 15.6.1942 was rendered in favour of the TTD against Hathiramji Mutt, that plaintiff was not a party to that suit and hence any finding as to TTD's title given therein is not admissible as evidence against the present plaintiff in this suit. 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 Kango and Ors., [1955]1SCR1 , speaking on behalf of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that a judgment not inter parties 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 and Ors., AIR1954SC606 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, ILR (1902) 29 Cal.190 that a previous judgment, not inter parts 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 Narain Singh ILR (1895) 22 Cal 533 by Sir John Woodroffe in his commentary on the Evidence Act (1931, P181) was not accepted by Lord Blanesburgh in collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunder, MANU/PR/0031/1934. 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.” In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the contention that the Writ Petitioners were not parties to the earlier suits in O.S.No.53 of 1987 and O.S.No.217 of 1998 and that the said judgments were not in rem, does not deserve acceptance. 22. As could be seen from the above discussion, the claims set up by the parties in the L.G.C., are three dimensional. The applicants claimed their title through their predecessor-in-title, namely, Mohammad Jahangir, who in turn is said to have purchased from the original owner, Mohammad Sharfuddin. The writ petitioners set up their claim as the legal heirs of the said Mohammed Sharfuddin. The 12th respondent claimed title as a purchaser under the registered sale deeds executed by the Respondents 6 and 7 who are said to be the GPAs of the writ petitioners. The dispute between the applicants and respondents 10 to 12 herein ended in a compromise both in A.S.No.31 of 2009 which was filed against O.S.No.217 of 1998 and in W.P.No.9237 of 2008. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners would therefore contend that they have filed a suit O.S.No.2900 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the respondents 6 and 7 and 10 to 12 for cancellation of sale deeds in document No.1868 dated 22.06.1998 and document No.1646 of 1996 dated 7.06.1996 i.e., Exs.B.1 and B.2, contending that respondents 6, 7 and 10 to 12 herein in collusion with each other set up the GPAs and registered the documents on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The petitioner would therefore contend that mere withdrawal of writ petition against the writ petitioners would not take away their claim. 23. Admittedly, the suit O.S.No.2900 of 2007 has been filed against respondents 6, 7 and 10 to 12 for cancellation of sale deeds dated 7.6.1996 and 22.6.1996. The applicants are not parties to the said suit nor any relief has been sought against them. On the basis of the said suit the title declared by the Special Court in favour of the applicants can neither be considered as illegal nor can be upset. 24. On a consideration of the matter as above, and no other ground having been urged, we are of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition, warranting judicial review of the impugned judgment and decree. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 12th November, 2010 Js/skmr. [1] AIR 1998 SC 1132