KANDUKURI PAPAMMA Vs. KANDUKURI NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this second appeal relates to a plot which the plaintiff alleges fell to her share at a partition but which the defendants say has been in their possession having fallen to their share at a partition even during the lifetime of their father. The plaintiff had to file a suit (O.S. No. 99 of 1940) for an injunction in respect of this plot some years before against the first defendant and the representatives of two other branches of the original family of four and in this suit she succeeded on the strength of a finding that the plot had fallen to her share. One of the questions raised is whether this decree is res judicata.

(2.) The first Court held that the unregistered agreements, Exs. P and P-1, which refer to the allotment of the plot to the plaintiff at a partition, were admissible in evidence and proved the plaintiff's title. It held, however, that the decree in O.S. No. 99 of 1940 did not bind defendants 2 and 3 who were not parties to the suit. On appeal the District Judge did not deal with the question of res judicata at all. As regards the admissibility of Exs. P and P-1, he took the view that they were inadmissible in evidence. Hence he dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) It is somewhat doubtful whether Exs. P and P-1 record a past transaction of partition or evidence a contemporaneous arrangement of division. Further, even if as a matter of fact the partition took place previously, as its terms were reduced to the form of a document and that document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, oral evidence is not permissible to be adduced. This is the effect of the decision reported in Subba Naidu V/s. Varadarajulu Naidu (1947) 1 M.L.J. 90.