Madras High Court· 28 August 2026

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, may a court decline to act on a judgment and decree passed in a suit to which the party against whom it is produced was not a party?

RAMAR UDAYAR v. Subburaya Udayar (Died)

SA.397/2004 · 2026:MHC:3527 · S.A. No.397 of 2004
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.13 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. Where that party was not made a party to the earlier suits and the property there is different from the suit property, the judgments and decrees are not binding upon him, and refusing to consider them in the plaintiff's favour is not in contravention of sections 13 and 40.

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.13 — s.40 — Declaration of title — Antecedent title — Revenue records — Preponderance of probabilities — Declaration of title — Antecedent title — Burden on the plaintiff — Held: A plaintiff who claims antecedent title and does not claim adverse possession must prove that title by adducing sufficient evidence; failure to produce any acceptable document of title defeats the claim to declaration. (¶25) Revenue records — Patta and adangal extract — No conferment of title — Held further: Revenue records alone do not confer any title or right over the suit property, and where the other compelling evidence on record shows otherwise they do not suffice to assert title. (¶23) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.13 — s.40 — Judgment in a suit between other parties — Not binding — Held further: A judgment and decree in a suit to which the party was not made a party, and which concerned a different property, is not binding upon him, and declining to act upon it contravenes neither section 13 nor section 40. (¶21) Recovery of possession — Admitted possession of the defendant — Preponderance of probabilities — Held further: Where the plaintiff himself seeks recovery of possession, the defendant's possession on the date of suit is admitted, and the preponderance of probabilities lying with the defendant, no interference is warranted. Second Appeal dismissed. (¶24, 25)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 21Similarly, from Ex-A.46 and Ex-A.47 - Judgment and Decree in another Suit filed against the present plaintiff in O.S. No.794 of 1994 by said Kannusamy's son in respect of the very same property (suit property in O.S. No.786 of 1987), it could be seen that it was disposed of on merits. Even there, the suit property therein has been described as bounded by the defendant's property on the west. Moreover, the defendant, who purchased the suit property much before the aforesaid two Suits, is not a party to either of the Suits and the suit property therein is different from the suit property herein and hence, the Judgments and Decrees therein would not be binding upon him. In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court is justified in not considering Ex-A.44 to Ex-A.47 in favour of plaintiff and the same cannot be said to be in contravention of Sections 13 and 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Substantial Question of Law No.(i) is answered accordingly.

Acts & Sections

s.13 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.40 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RAMAR UDAYAR v. Subburaya Udayar (Died) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Do revenue records such as a patta or an adangal extract by themselves confer title to immovable property?What must a plaintiff who claims antecedent title, and not adverse possession, establish in a suit for declaration?What is the consequence, on the question of possession, of a plaintiff seeking the relief of recovery of possession?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections