Last Updated on
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.
1. This case is not distinguishable from those to which the lower Appellate Court refers as having governed his decision that the decree formerly obtained by Sidhi Nazar Ali Khan when in possession as an auction-purchaser is not available as evidence in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, who does not, in any way, claim through that individual; and that decision is in accordance with the ruling of the Full Bench in Gujju Lal v. Fatteh Loll I.L.R. 6 Cal. 171 which we think should in this case be followed.
2. The case of Hira Lal Pal v. Hills 11 C.L.R. 528 cited for the appellant, shows that in certain cases judgments not inter partes may be taken into consideration, but it does not pretend to lay down that such judgments can be treated as conclusive evidence, which is what was sought in this case in respect of the judgment and decree in question.
3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.