THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.C.C.A.Nos.126, 127, 153, 168 of 2002 AND C.C.C.A.No.64 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 26-03- 2002 in O.S.Nos.264 and 265 of 2001 on the file of the court of XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.264 of 2001, which was originally a suit instituted as O.S.No.4447 of 1980, are the appellants in C.C.C.A.126 of 2002; the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.265 of 2001 which was originally instituted as O.S.No.948 of 1988 are the appellants in C.C.C.A.No.127 of 2002 and the legal representatives of defendant No.4 in the suit are the appellants in C.C.C.A.153 of 2002 and 5th defendant in the suit is the appellant in C.C.C.A.No.168 of 2002. Defendant No.11 in the suit is the appellant in C.C.C.A.No.64 of 2003. By a common judgment dated 26-03-2002 the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the suit O.S.264 of 2001 and decreed the suit O.S.No.265 of 2001. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred as in O.S.No.265 of 2001. The above suit was filed for cancellation of sale deeds in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs are said to be of unsound mind and the suit was filed by next friend Dost Mohammed. The substance of the allegations in the plaint are that the suit schedule property, which is a building bearing Door No.5-8-329, situated at Chappal Road, belonged to the mother of the plaintiff who died on 04-01-1967. The plaintiffs have got two brothers and they also died and therefore they are entitled to the properties. The defendant No.9 is the son of the first plaintiff and defendant No.10 is the wife of defendant No.9. The substance of the allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are of un-sound mind and are not capable of taking care themselves of their properties independently. Defendant Nos.9 and 10 also did not take proper care and they are taking undue advantage of the unsoundness of the plaintiffs and dealing with the suit schedule properties by creating fictitious sale deeds. The first defendant is a tenant in a part of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are under the control of defendant Nos.9 and 10 and the plaintiffs have no knowledge or consciousness when they signed on several documents. The income from the properties was not sufficient and as such the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.9 and 19 under whose care the plaintiffs were living was suffering with poverty. One M.S.Malik and Harjit kowr are the parents of the fist defendant and they had an evil intention to grab the property. The first defendant and her parents have colluded with defendant Nos.9 and 10 and obtained a sale deed dated 13-03-1979 for a portion of the suit schedule property measuring 190 square yards for which defendant No.10 is an attesting witness. No consideration was received by the plaintiffs and the contents of the sale deed are not correct. The sale is vitiated by fraud, coercion and threat and it is void. The first defendant is not the exclusive owner of the property covered under the said deed and the second plaintiff is not a party and hence the sale deed is not valid. Thereafter, defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are the friends and associates of first defendant obtained another sale deed on 15-04-1980 in collusion with defendant Nos.9 and 10 with regard to part of the property and at that time also the plaintiffs were not in a sound state of mind. The consideration was not paid as alleged and therefore the said sale deed is not valid. There was also no mutation of the property. The defendant No.9 sold part of the property to defendant No.6 on 21-12-1979 without any title and part of the property was also sold to defendant No.7 on 09-10-1980. Defendant No.8 has obtained a sale deed on 21.01.1982 executed by the first plaintiff by threat, coercion etc., and it is not valid. The sale deeds dated 21-12-1979 and 09-10-1980 are not valid as they were not executed by the plaintiffs. The substance of the allegation is that taking advantage of the unsound mind and incapacity of the plaintiffs to understand the transactions, the defendants have fabricated the documents and therefore they are vitiated and challenging the sale transactions the present suit was filed on 13-07-1984. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.264 of 2001 have filed a written statement contending that most of the allegations in the plaint are not correct and the litigation is being encouraged by so- called guardian Dost Mohammed who can never be a competent to represent the family or the estate of the deceased. He even does not belong to the community of the parties. He cannot also dispute the conduct of defendant Nos.9 and 10. It was also further alleged that second plaintiff died and the legal representatives were not brought on record and the suit is bad. There was no inquisition under Section 65 of the Lunacy Act about the unsound mind of the plaintiffs. The suit is engineered by defendant Nos.9 and 10 in connivance with Dost Mohammed, who is financing the defendant Nos.9 and 10 with an eye on the property. It was further pleaded the plaintiffs were not at all people of unsound mind and the sale deeds executed by them are valid. The plaintiffs were attending to their regular duties and looking after their property. The sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 which were disputed are valid and supported by consideration. The allegations of fraud and undue influence are also disputed. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is barred by time. The fourth defendant filed a separate written statement reiterating the contentions of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and also contending that the sale deed in his favour is valid. The other defendants did not file written statement. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 who are purchasers under the disputed sale deeds long prior to the filing of the suit O.S.No.265 of 2001 filed the suit O.S.No.264 of 2001 (old O.S.No.4447 of 1980) for recovery of the possession of the property on the basis of the sale deeds in their favour against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.265 of 2001. The suit was defended on the same grounds as a plea of defence which was the basis of the suit in O.S.No.265 of 2001. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial in both the suits. O.S.No.264 of 2001 1. Whether the sale deeds dated 15-04-1980 and 13-3-1979 are illegal, void and not binding upon defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits? 4. To what relief? 5. Whether the sale deed dated 15-04-1980 in respect of the suit property alleged to have been executed by defendants is true, valid and binding on the defendants? 6. Whether the sale deed is vitiated by fraud and coercion? 7. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? 8. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to a decree for possession as prayed for? 9. Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to mesne profits as claimed for? O.S.No.265 of 2001 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for cancellation of sale deeds obtained by defendants 1 to 8 and 11? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for direction to defendants 1 to 8 and 11 to vacate and handover vacant possession to plaintiffs of plaint schedule property? 3. To what relief? In O.S.No.264 of 2001 PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A- 1 to A-39 and Exs.X-1 to X-5 and C-1 to C-3. On behalf of the defendants DWs.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. In O.S.No.265 of 2001 PWs.1 and 2 are examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-23 and on behalf of the defendants DW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. The learned Additional Chief Judge of Fast Track Court by the common judgment decreed the suit O.S.No.265 of 2001 and dismissed the suit O.S.No.264 of 2001. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are:- 1. Whether the declaration granted by the learned Additional Chief Judge in O.S.No.265 of 2001 is proper? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge is legal and sustainable? 3. To what relief? POINTS:- Before considering the merits of the case, it is useful to refer to the following facts from the judgment of the lower court:- Para.39 “The suit O.S.No.265 of 2001 is filed by these two defendants of O.S.No.264 of 2001 for cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.264 of 2001 and also in favour of other defendants on the grounds that during that period they were of unsound mind. In the suit i.e., O.S.No.265 of 2001 plaintiffs of O.S.No.264 of 2001 are defendants 1 to 3. The other purchasers of the portion of the suit house are added as defendants including the 1st plaintiff’s son and daughter- in-law. In the above suit O.S.No.265 of 2001 main defendants are D1 to D3 who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.264 of 2001. Thus both the suits are intrinsically connected with each other. In both the person who executed the sale deeds and whether they were in such a position to understand that they were executing the sale deeds and parting the properties and whether they were mentally sound and capable of executing the sale deeds. Hence the evidence in both the suits has to be considered together for better understanding and deciding the issue. But both the suit were tried separately. However the arguments were heard both sides simultaneously. While the suits were pending memos were also filed for joint trial. However the suits were not tried jointly. The property involved in both the suits is same. Hence in view of the above circumstances, I hold that is quite proper and reasonable to club both the suits together and pronounce common judgment in order to avoid complications. Hence I club both the suits together and pronounce common judgment. Para.42 All these issues answer the main dispute in both the suits. The suit O.S.No.264 of 2001 is only for possession of portion of the suit property from the defendants. The suit O.S.No.265 of 2001 is for cancellation of the sale deeds covered in O.S.No.264 of 2001 and other sale deeds said to have been executed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.265 of 2001 and others. Thus O.S.No.265 of 2001 is a comprehensive suit covering all the aspects of the O.S.No.264 of 2001 also.” Therefore, from the above judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, it is quite clear that the suits were tried separately and evidence was recorded separately. The judgment does not disclose that though the arguments were advanced simultaneously both parties have agreed to read the evidence in the separate suits together for delivery of the judgment. In fact the learned Additional Chief Judge himself clubbed the suits and pronounced the common judgment. In fact this judgment and the approach of the learned Additional Chief Judge is attacked by the counsel for the appellant in the written arguments submitted in CCCA 127 of 2002 as under:- “Admittedly, the two suits (OS No.264 of 2001 and 265 of 2001 were filed by the parties against each other, and the defendants-4 to 11 in O.S.No.265 of 2001 were not at all parties in O.S.No.264 of 2001, and though the issues were quite distinct and independent in the said two suits, and further trial was conducted separately in both the suits, only at the time of pronouncing the Judgments in both the suits, a common judgment was delivered mixing the facts and circumstances in an irregular and erroneous manner. The only observation by the Court below that both the suits are intrinsically connected with each other, is not a sufficient and valid reason to club the matters, when the pleadings and the issues framed thereon are quite distinct with each other. As can be seen from the above narration, in O.S.No.264 of 2001 issues were from on 17.04.1984 and additional issues were framed on 29.01.1985, and thereafter a long period of more than 6-years different issues were framed in O.S.No.265 of 2001 on 31.08.1990 and thereafter again a long period of 8-years an additional issue was framed. The issues were quite distinct with each other, and it is quite irrational to decide those issues by a common judgment. The primary issue, whether the plaintiffs were of unsound mind and incapable of executing the sale deeds, has been discussed by clubbing with other issues, and the Court below without the basis of any evidence on record and the entire common Judgment went on wrong and erroneous footings. Therefore, the question is whether the disposal of the case by the learned Additional Chief Judge is legal or not. Sofar as the power of the court to club the suits is concerned, even without the consent of the parties for convenient trial, the court can club the same before commencement of the trial. But at a latter stage when the trial has been conducted separately the court does not have any power under Section 151 CPC to club the suits for convenient disposal and delivery of the judgment. It is to be mentioned that when the two suits are tried separately, evidence recorded in the two suits is independent and it is preliminary that Court cannot look into evidence in another case to arrive at a decision in a particular case. Without the consent of the parties the Court cannot read the evidence in other suit for the purpose of a decision in any case. In this connection, it is useful to refer the decision reported in Mitthulal and another Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh([1]) wherein it was held as under:- “It is elementary that each case must be decided on the evidence recorded in it and evidence recorded in another case though it may be a cross-case cannot be taken into account in arriving at the decision. Even in civil cases this cannot be done unless the parties are agreed that the evidence in one case may be treated as evidence in the other. Much more so in criminal cases would this be impermissible. It is doubtful whether the evidence recorded in one criminal case can be treated as evidence in the other even with the consent of the accused.” Therefore, even otherwise the relevancy of evidence can only be under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. Section.33 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:- Section.33: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts stated therein Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of providing in a subsequent judicial proceeding or in latter stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way of the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable: Provided--- that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representative-in-interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. Evidently, the other defendants in O.S.No.265 of 2001 have no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses in O.S.No.264 of 2001 as they are not parties though defendant Nos.1 to 3 may be a parties in O.S.No.265 of 2001. Therefore, the approach of the lower court in clubbing both the suits and deciding them with reference to the evidence of different suits is not legal. Even otherwise if I am not wrong the lower court even did not care to appreciate the evidence in deciding the case. The sole ground of attack on the sale transactions is that the plaintiffs are people of unsound mind. The lower court found that the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove the same. The lower court found that the suit O.S.No.265 of 2001 is a comprehensive suit since a challenge is made for several alienations for the period from 1977 to 1982. Therefore, what is to be proved by the plaintiffs is that during this period the plaintiffs are people of unsound mind. The whole basis of the claim to avoid the sale transactions is this only. The question as to whether there is sufficient consideration or whether there was valid passing of the consideration are quite different when a transaction is challenged on the ground of unsoundness of mind. Fraud may have application if persons are of unsound mind since they cannot be said to be acting by themselves and their actions are not proper. The whole approach of the lower court is based on the inconsistencies with regard to consideration and the extent of the properties conveyed etc., If the suit O.S.No.265 of 2001 is to be taken into consideration except the evidence of PW.1 who was discharged as a guardian of the plaintiffs on 09-04-98 in I.A.No.488/97 and whose credibility is seriously disputed, there is no other evidence of any nature to substantiate the claim of the plaintiffs. When PW.2 (first plaintiff) was produced in the court and evidence was recorded in 1999 and when the court found that she is capable of giving evidence, PW.1 who was already discharged as guardian opposed the examination of the first plaintiff and further PW.1 was cross examined by the first plaintiff as per the orders of the court in the same suit. It is useful to extract the docket order of the lower court dated 22-11-1999 in O.S.No.265 of 2001 as under:- “This matter is coming up for enquiry with regard to the preliminary issue framed by this court with regard to the mental condition of the plaintiff No.1 i.e., Mary Eleak who is represented through next friend Sri Dost Mohammed. In pursuant thereto the attendance of the said plaintiff No.1 namely Mary Eleak is compelled and she is present before the court today. At this juncture, the counsel for the next friend filed a memo objecting the recording of the statement of Smt.Mary Eleak and requested the court, first to submit her for medical examination. The issue of unsoundness of mind of plaintiff is primarily between the court and the party, the next friend has no locus standi to raise any objection or to suggest anything. It is purely within the discretion of this court. Hence objection to examine the Mary Elkeak who is present before the court by the next friend do not sustain. Smt. Mary Eleak is orally examined by the court preliminarily in the form of questions and answers and satisfied about her mental condition which appears to be in sound state of mind. For better appreciation of this, it is also just and proper to refer Smt.Mary Eleak to the Superintendent Government Mental Care, Erragadda, Hyderabad. For medical examination and report, address a letter accordingly. Further report call on 01-12-1999.” Pursuant to that Ex.B-3 in O.S.No.264 of 2001 is the certificate issued by the Institute of Mental Health, which reads as under:- “This is to inform the Hon’ble Court that Smt.Mary E.Leake sent for observation, attended the out-patient department of this hospital on 30-11-1999. She has been observed and evaluated independently by a committee of experts as on out- patient basis during the period 30-11-1999 to 28-11-1999. She was also subjected to detailed psychometric and other investigations. During this observation, she has not shown any signs of mental illness and is found to be of sound mind. She is at present fit to give evidence in a court of law. This is for the kind information of the Hon’ble Court.” Thereafter, she was not at all examined in that suit about the transactions or her incapacities due to unsoundness of mind earlier and there was no decision on the preliminary issue. Evidently, the knowledge of PW.1 about her family affairs is only after filing of O.S.264 of 2001, when he came on record as guardian. She was examined only in O.S.264 of 2001 after two years i.e., 09-07-2001 and in fact her evidence also with regard to transaction is not clear. PW.1 in O.S.No.265 of 2001 has come into picture only at a latter stage and not from beginning since a court guardian was appointed in O.S.No.264 of 2001 earlier and the written statement was also filed by the court guardian. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Chief Judge does not even refer to the evidence of the Doctor who was examined in O.S.No.264 of 2001 to come to a conclusion as to whether plaintiffs are people of unsound mind. There cannot be any comment against the defendants not going into box in O.S.No.265 of 2001 when the first plaintiff herself was kept away and there is no independent evidence of unsoundness of mind. It is useful to refer to the docket order of the lower court dated 24-09-1998 in O.S.No.265 of 2001 as under:- “This is a suit filed through next friend on behalf of the plaintiff who said to have been of unsoundness of mind at the time of filing of the suit. While this suit is coming up for further proceeding and for trial of the suit, the next friend PW.1 namely Ghouse Mohammed is also examined on behalf of the plaintiff in support of the suit claim. While so, the original plaintiff No.1 filed a petition in I.A.No.488 of 1997 claiming to be that she has become sane and now she is of soundness of mind and therefore requested to remove the next friend namely Ghouse Mohammed. The said petition is allowed by an order dated 09-04-1998 in I.A.No.488 of 1997 to cause enquiry in to the soundness of mind of plaintiff No.1 by framing a preliminary issue in that regard. Thereafter PW.1 Ghouse Mohammed, who is acting as next friend is recalled for the purpose of adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and he was further examined in chief on 07-09-1998 and Ex.A-21 to Ad-23 documents marked on his behalf. The cross examination on behalf of the defendant is also made and the matter is posted for cross examination on behalf of the original plaintiff’s counsel. At this stage, the counsel appearing on behalf of the next friend Ghouse Mohammed made an objection that the plaintiffs are not entitled to cross examine PW.1 who is the next friend of the plaintiff No.1 herself. There is a contest between the plaintiff and the next friend with regard to the soundness and insanity of mind of plaintiff No.1. The next friend namely PW.1 is still of the opinion that the plaintiff No.1 is incapable of protecting herself as she is still insane. However, the plaintiff no.1 engaged counsel and filed an I.A.488 of 1997 seeking for the removal of next friend who according to plaintiff No.1 is prosecuting the suit adverse to her interest. In the earlier petition filed on behalf of Plaintiff no.1 in I.A.No.488 of 1997 there was a separate order to cause enquiry into the soundness and insanity of the plaintiff No.1 by framing preliminary issue. Accordingly on 23-06-1998 an additional issue is framed with regard to the soundness and unsoundness of mind of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.2 is no more. After framing of preliminary issue the suit is coming up for further trial and Pw.1 is recalled and further examined. It is this stage the objection raised by the counsel for the next friend