JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff in this case sues for a five annas share in a. maliki right in certain land, and other reliefs. In the first Court the suit was decreed in his favour as far as the five annas share was concerned. On appeal it was found that he was not entitled to more than a two and a half annas share. Against this decision the Plaintiff has appealed. The Plaintiffs case is that Abbas Ali, his maternal grandfather, owned a ten annas share in the maliki right in the land in dispute. He gave five annas of this to his daughter, the Plaintiffs mother, and five annas to the Plaintiff, and then. died. The contesting Defendant is Abbas Ali's brother, and contends that he and Abbas Ali owned the ten annas maliki right in equal shares, so that Abbas Ali's gift to the Plaintiff, though it purported to convey five annas, did not in fact convey more than two annas and a half. The lower Appellate Court adopted this view, relying on two deeds, one executed by the Plaintiff's mother, acting through his father, in favour of the contesting Defendant, in which it was recited that the gift of ten annas by Abbas Ali was due to a mistake, and that he Was entitled to deal and intended to deal with five annas only : the other being a patta executed by the Plaintiff's mother and father in which they stated that a five annas share in the property belonged to the contesting Defendant. 2. Before us it is argued that the two documents we have referred to were not admissible in evidence: and we are of opinion that this contention is sound. The Plaintiff was admittedly a stranger to both the instruments, but it is contended that they are nevertheless admissible against him by virtue of sec. 13 of the Evidence Act, and the decision in Dwarka Nath v. Mukundalal 5 C L.J. 55 (1906) supports this view. The facts of that case are not to be distinguished from, those before us, and if the whole of the judgment is binding on us it is an authority for the proposition it is cited to support. The case however seems to have been decided on findings of fact unconnected with the admissibility of the documents in the case, and against the Plaintiff, in whose favour they were produced. The case however seems to have been decided on findings of fact unconnected with the admissibility of the documents in the case, and against the Plaintiff, in whose favour they were produced. The ruling as to the admissibility of the documents was therefore obiter, and we cannot agree with the law there laid down. The decisions relied on are those in Daitari Mohanty v. Jugobundhu 23 W. R. 298 (1875). and Vythilinga v. Venkalachala I. L. R. 16 Mad. 194 (1892). But in the former of these cases the decision as to the document referred to only related to the manner in which it was sought to prove it, though the head-note conveys a different impression, and in the latter the documents referred to the tenure on which a whole village was held, which is a very different case from the present. The well-known cases referring to the effect of a judgment not between the parties seem to us not to decide the present question We know of no authority for saying that a private transaction between persons who have no power to bind a person whose rights it is sought thereby to affect can be admitted as evidence against him : and the obvious dangers that might arise from such a proceeding make us unwilling to hold that such a transaction is one that comes under sec. 13 unless we are obliged to. The appeal is therefore allowed, the decision of the lower' Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Munsif restored. The Appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court. On looking at the judgment of the Munsif we make no order as to the costs in the lower Appellate Court.