BILAL NAZKI, J, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs 1 to 9 filed a suit against defendants 1 to 8 for declaration and injunction. The claim of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 was that they along with defendant No. 1 and father of defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of land in survey No. 4 and 5/2 measuring Ac. 31. 16 guntas situated at Village Rayadurg Panamaktha, Hyderabad west taluq now in Serilingamapally Municipality, Rangareddy District with the owners and pattedars of the said survey numbers under an agreement of sale dated 14th June, 1967. They had paid earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- on the date of agreement of sale and balance of Rs. 47,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Thereafter the plaintiffs with the defendant No. 1, father of defendants 2 and 3 jointly paid a further sum of Rs. 36,900/- to the owners of the land and obtained joint physical possession of the said land in survey No. 4 and 5/2 under a written document of delivery of possession on 16. 1. 1969. The plaintiffs and the defendants are in actual physical possession of the said land and they continued to be in possession even on the date of filing of the suit. The major portion of the sale consideration had already been paid to the owners and pattedars of the land and the sale deed could not be executed and registered due to non-completion of legal formalities by the pattedars. In the meanwhile some third parties claiming to be protected tenants of the said land initiated proceedings before the revenue authorities and they are pending. It was further contended that while the matters were pending before the revenue authorities the defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 7 was trying to sell away the suit land by drawing a layout plan without obtaining necessary sanction and bermission from defendants 4 and 5 behind the back of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 7 kept the plaintiffs in dark and advertised in local newspaper i. e. , Deccan Chronicle on 8. 11. 1989 the sale of plots of land in the suit land. The plaintiffs had also learnt that the defendant No. 7 had received advance amounts from the intending purchasers by misleading them. The defendant No. 7 kept the plaintiffs in dark and advertised in local newspaper i. e. , Deccan Chronicle on 8. 11. 1989 the sale of plots of land in the suit land. The plaintiffs had also learnt that the defendant No. 7 had received advance amounts from the intending purchasers by misleading them. The defendants 1, 2, 3 and 7 had no right or authority to sell, alienate or encumber the suit land to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had equal rights in title and possession along with defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 being in joint possession of the entire suit land were entitled to separate possession of their shares. The protected tenants filed OS No. 192/87 against the defendants No. l claiming title over the suit land and the plaintiffs are taking steps to get themselves impleaded in the suit. Defendant No. 1 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs initiated certain legal proceedings before the revenue and civil Courts behind the back of the plaintiffs styling himself as the sole owner of the land and brought some changes in the revenue records to that effect. The defendant No. l also obtained a decree in OS No. 156/84 on 27. 4. 1984 from Addl. Sub-Court, rangareddy District in respect of the suit land. The decree is collusive in nature and does not confer any rights over the defendant No. 1 as against the plaintiffs. Whatever rights have accrued to the defendant No. 1 by virtue of the said decree also accrue to the plaintiffs and other co-purchasers. Mere mutation in the patta and the revenue records in the name of defendant No. 1 on the basis of a decree does not confer exclusive right of ownership on the defendant No. 1 over the suit land. The plaintiffs claim shares in the suit land and therefore sought partition and separate possession of their respective legitimate share in the suit land. ( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 7 contested the suit, D3 supported the plaintiffs, D2 remained absent and did not contest the matter, D8 who was a purchaser from defendants 1 and 7 was also impleaded and he filed written statement, defendants 4 to 6 did not file any written statement. ( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 7 contested the suit, D3 supported the plaintiffs, D2 remained absent and did not contest the matter, D8 who was a purchaser from defendants 1 and 7 was also impleaded and he filed written statement, defendants 4 to 6 did not file any written statement. Defendant No. 1 s case was that, there was no concluded contract between the plaintiffs along with father of D2 and D3 with the land owners and pattedars in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs and father of D2 and D3 had not consented to the said transaction and did not communicate consent to the owners of the land. D1 also denied that the parties had jointly paid Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money to the land owners. He also denied that the plaintiffs had paid along with him Rs. 36,900/- to the pattedars before obtaining possession. The positive case of the D1 was that he was owner and real purchaser and he had paid initially advance amount as well as subsequent amount as consideration to the pattedars. He denied joint possession of plaintiffs, D3 and D4 over the suit land at any point of time. He also stated that plaintiffs had no right to question his authority in dealing with the suit land. The defendant No. 1 in his capacity as full absolute owner had entrusted the land to defendant No. 7 and in pursuance thereof D7 spent some amount and developed the land and the process of laying the roads and pipelines are almost at the stage of completion. It is also stated that the advertisement which was issued by D7 was issued on 8th November, 1989 but the plaintiffs kept quiet for three months and filed the suit only on 6. 2. 1990. Dl alone was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land continuously and uninterruptedly and even to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, D2 and D3 for the last 20 years. The alleged protected tenants filed false and baseless suit being OS No. 192/87, the plaintiffs, D2 and D3 remained absent, they were set ex parte and D1 alone contested the suit. D1 with his own right filed a suit OS No. 156/84 for declaration of title and grant of patta in his name which was decreed, patta was also transferred in the name of Dl in the revenue records. D1 with his own right filed a suit OS No. 156/84 for declaration of title and grant of patta in his name which was decreed, patta was also transferred in the name of Dl in the revenue records. It is further stated that the plaintiffs were known people and close relatives and friends Dl asked them to join in the purchase of the suit lands and thus the agreement of sale dated 14. 6. 1967 was drafted in the name of plaintiffs along with D1. At the time of concluding the agreement the plaintiffs expressed their doubt about the legality of sale by pattedars as there were some alleged protected tenants in the suit lands as recorded in the revenue records and the plaintiffs refused to sign the agreement of sale despite various assuring clauses put forward by the sellers in the agreement. Finally the defendant No. 1 alone signed the agreement in the last minute and he paid the consideration to the pattedars. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 accepted the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 7 filed a written statement stating that he entered into agreement with Dl on 6. 1. 1990 to develop the suit land to an extent of Ac. 22-33 guntas. He also stated that the layout for the land was sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat and the approval by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority was awaited. The land was divided into 190 plots by Name Estates Pvt. Ltd. , and as per the terms of the agreement, the developer has to lay the roads, demarcate the plots, lay the drainage and sewerage system and provide water supply lines and electricity. In pursuance of the agreement the developer had advanced Rs. 5. 00 lakhs under various cheques in favour of the owner of the land between 20. 6. 1989 and January, 1990. Defendant No. 7 had already allotted the plot bearing No. 27 and had also given allotment letter and thexsaid allottee had already constructed the house. The plaint was amended and a relief of partition and separate possession was included. Thereafter additional written statement was also filed. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed : 1. The plaint was amended and a relief of partition and separate possession was included. Thereafter additional written statement was also filed. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of 1/6th share each to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 1/2th share to plaintiffs 3 and 4 as prayed for in the plaint of the plaint property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction against Dl and D7 from alienating or creating charge of the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction against D4 not to sanction any layout or permission in respect of the suit property? 4. Whether the defendants 5 and 6 can be restrained for granting permission for construction and exchange of mutation and transfer of documents in respect of the suit property? ( 5 ) WHETHER Dl is absolute owner and possessor of the suit property and there was no concluded contract between him and the plaintiffs herein? ( 6 ) TO what relief? 5. Issues 1 and 5 were taken together by the learned trial Court and held that defendant No. l was not entitled to be declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the agreement of sale under Ex. B1 was not in favour of defendant No. l alone. The trial Court also decided issue No. 5 against defendant No. 1 and in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 2 accordingly was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. Now, coming to the evidence, 2 witnesses have been examined by the plaintiffs and 4 witnesses have been examined by the defendants, number of documents were exhibited. Issue No. 5 is the crucial issue therefore this Court would address itself to the question, "whether defendant No. 1 was absolute owner and possessor of the suit lands". In the background of this question let us examine the defendant No. 1 s statement. He is a Chartered Accountant by profession and also agriculturist. He stated that he purchased this land by including the names of the plaintiffs in the agreement. So, he has admitted that the land was purchased by him and the names of the plaintiffs were also included as purchasers in the agreement. According to him the total consideration was Rs. 57,000/- and he had paid Rs. He stated that he purchased this land by including the names of the plaintiffs in the agreement. So, he has admitted that the land was purchased by him and the names of the plaintiffs were also included as purchasers in the agreement. According to him the total consideration was Rs. 57,000/- and he had paid Rs. 10,000/-as advance on the date of agreement. There was no stipulation in the agreement for payment of balance without vendors getting the permission under Sections 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act. The vendors kept quiet till 1969 but demanded more money therefore, he stated that, "we have paid Rs. 21,000/- in December, 1967, we have paid Rs. 7500/- in January, 1968". Thereafter, he stated that, he asked vendors for delivery of possession. The GPA refused to handover possession and wanted payment of entire consideration. Thereafter he paid Rs. 4,500/- and Rs. 3,900/- and obtained possession on 16. 1. 1969. Except the amount of Rs. 3900/- all the amounts were paid through cheques and demand drafts. He alone paid the amount and there was no contribution by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, he stated that, "we came to know that there were two protected tenants by name Golla Mallaiah and Komaraiah over this land. The litigation was started by the tenants in 1975. " Then he exhibited pahanis for the years 1983-84 to 1990-91 as Ex. B21 to Ex. B28. Ex. B29 and B30 were exhibited by him as the receipts passed by the watchman. Ex. B31 was a letter given by him to the Sarpanch on 10. 8. 1986. Ex. B32 was payment of amount for construction of house to the Gram Panchayat. Ex. B33 was permission. Ex. B34 was plan. Ex. B35 and B36 were receipts passed by Gram Panchayat for building permission. Ex. B37 was map. Ex. B38 to B46 were land revenue receipts. Ex. B47 was the order of Revenue Divisional Officer. Ex. B48 and B48 were the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer and Ex. B50 was the order of the High Court in CRP No. 912/88. Ex. B3 was a letter addressed by him to the plaintiffs and others asking for contribution for the expenditure incurred by him for the litigation. The plaintiffs did not pay any amount in pursuance of Ex. B3. He stated that the suit land was his exclusive property. B50 was the order of the High Court in CRP No. 912/88. Ex. B3 was a letter addressed by him to the plaintiffs and others asking for contribution for the expenditure incurred by him for the litigation. The plaintiffs did not pay any amount in pursuance of Ex. B3. He stated that the suit land was his exclusive property. He filed suit OS No. 156/84 for mutation of his name in the revenue records and it was decreed. The interlocutory applications were dismissed. He had constructed three houses in the suit land, first one in the year 1974, second one in the year 1978 and the third one was constructed in the year 1990-91. The first two were servant quarters. There was no objection by the plaintiffs for the constructions. Ex. B51 was the copy of plaint in OS No. 156/84. Ex. B52 was the copy of ROR. Ex. B53 was copy of the decree and Ex. B54 was copy of the judgment in OS No. 123/76. Ex. B55 was copy of the Commissioner s report. Ex. B56 was the copy of temporary injunction granted in OS No. 123/76. Ex. B57 was the copy of report of the bailiff. He lost the case before the Land Reforms Tribunal. The entire litigation was fought by him alone, the other partners have never shown any interest. In cross-examination he stated that defendant No. 7 was his younger brother and his wife and the wife of his younger brother were sisters. They are the daughters of D2. D3 is the eldest daughter of D2. D2 was alive. D2 was not co-operating with him and he was not examining him as a witness. It was true that PW2 and D2 were colleagues in 1967 at Hyderabad. He was aware of the protected tenancy over the purchased lands before entering into sale agreement. He had not obtained the copy of tenancy extracts before purchase. Abdullah Patni the GPA of vendors was alive. He was also not proposing to bring him as witness. He was known to D2 and PW2 before the sale. He did not know whether Abduallah Patni died in 1982-83. D2 was not instrumental in purchase of suit land. He had started his profession in 1965-66. By 1967 he had not made any mark in his profession. The presence of D2 was a factor for his shifting to Hyderabad from Madras. He did not know whether Abduallah Patni died in 1982-83. D2 was not instrumental in purchase of suit land. He had started his profession in 1965-66. By 1967 he had not made any mark in his profession. The presence of D2 was a factor for his shifting to Hyderabad from Madras. The husband of D3 was in Airforce. Ex. B1 was the sale agreement prepared by one Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate for Abdullah Patni. The particulars were furnished by all the partners collectively to Abdullah Patni for drafting Ex. B1. He admitted that Ex. Bl remained in his custody throughout. He stated that he might have filed Ex. Bl before any other Court or forum earlier. He accepted that he had defended OS No. 183/76 on the file of West Court. He did not remember whether he had filed Ex. B1 agreement in OS No. 123/ 76. He denied the suggestion that he had subscribed his signature on Ex. B 1 and B2 in 1989. He had gone through the contents of Ex. A2 before its execution. He admitted that Ex. Bl was intended in favour of the purchasers. ( 7 ) NOW, in the light of this statement let us examine relevant documents for the purpose of deciding the controversy. Ex. B 1 is the sale agreement. This agreement shows that this was made between the vendors and plaintiffs. In this agreement para-4 states: "whereas the vendors have agreed to sell the schedule land admeasuring about Ac. 31-16 guntas for a total cash consideration of Rs. 57,000/- (Rupees fifty seven thousands) only to the vendees and the vendees together jointly agreed to purchase the same, vendees Nos. 1 to 5 having 1/6th share each and the vendees Nos. 6 and 7 having 1/12th share each, having all vendees invested the funds in the same ratio as per their respective shares, and the vendees have today i. e. , 14th June, 1967 paid Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the vendors as earnest money, the receipt of which sum the vendors hereby acknowledge and admit, and the vendors have agreed to receive the balance of consideration i. e. , Rs, 47,000/- (Rupees forty seven thousand only) at the time of registration of the sale deed in respect of the schedule land;" this agreement has been admitted by defendant No. 1. He has given an explanation that the other partners had some doubts about the capacity of the vendors to sell the land therefore they backed out but he alone accepted the agreement therefore there is only his signature on the agreement. The defendant No. 1 is not an illiterate person he is a Chartered Accountant by profession. Had this happened he would have not incorporated clause (4) in the agreement. Even in the preamble of the agreement the names of all the purchasers are mentioned. After all this would take half an hour to re-draft an agreement and he was not such an innocent person that he would accept the agreement as it was, pay the amount from his pocket and create interest for other persons. Ex. B2 is a possession deed executed on 16th January, 1969. This has also been accepted by the defendant No. 1. The original agreement of sale was dated 14th June, 1967. Ex. B2 also states that the possession of the land was handed over in terms of the agreement dated 14. 6. 1967 to Cherukuri Venkataswamy Naidu, Name Rama Moorthy, Ravula Somasundaram, Smt Vemuri Samadhanamma, Smt. Indira Prasad, Smt. V. L. Manoharam and Smt. Patchava Ramanamma. All the seven names are mentioned even in this deed. Had the plaintiffs walked out of the agreement before it was executed between the vendors and the defendant No. 1 in the year 1967 and only the defendant No. l had honoured the agreement and therefore the agreement bore only his signature why would he agree to taking the possession by virtue of Ex. B2 which clearly mentions that the possession was delivered to all those vendors mentioned in Ex. B1 and this document was executed two years after the original document. It also stated that; "the purchasers have so jar paid an amount of Rs. 46,900/- out of the total of Rs. 57,000/- and the balance of Rs. 10. 100/-to be paid". Even at this stage the defendant No. 1 could have agitated his rights and not entered into such an agreement of possession. The third document is Ex. B3 which has been produced by defendant No. 1 himself and this is one of the letters according to him written to other purchasers asking them to make the proportionate payment towards him which according to him had been incurred on various litigations. The third document is Ex. B3 which has been produced by defendant No. 1 himself and this is one of the letters according to him written to other purchasers asking them to make the proportionate payment towards him which according to him had been incurred on various litigations. This letter was written as late as on 11 th September, 1976. Derails of expenditure have been given in annexure to it. For instance, one of the persons to whom this letter was addresse was asked to pay Rs. 470-35/- ps. , which, according to the defendant No. 1 it was his share in meeting the expenditure. Even in this letter it has nowhere been mentioned that the consideration was not paid by them. Obviously this letter was written after the payment except Rs. 10,100/- had been made to the vendors. Ex. B4 and some other exhibits are the receipts given by the GPA on behalf of the vendors to the defendant No. 1 by which it is sought to be proved that payment of consideration had been made by him. May be payment was made by him after collecting from the other partners because Ex. B3 belies the contention that he had paid the consideration money. Ex. B3 was written in September, 1976 whereas Ex. B4 receipt was dated 29th December, 1967. If the defendant No. l was particular that an amount of Rs. 470. 35 should be paid by a partner he would have similarly demanded the proportionate amount from Rs. 21,000/- for which receipt had been obtained on 29th December, 1967. There are some more documents which belie the contentions raised by the defendant No. 1 which need to be mentioned. On 20th March, 1975 the defendant No. 1 made an application to the Tribunal, Revenue Divisional Office, Hyderabad West which is Ex. Al. It was in response to the notice of the Tribunal under Rule 4 (1) and 4 (2) of A. P (TA) Tenancy Rules addressed to Latif Khan. In that application he states : "the above referred notice was sent to Sri Latif Khan and others originally. Since the owners of the land have given complete possession of the land to me and other joint buyers below mentioned the notice was handed over to us in this week for further action, the delay in replying with the objection and actual facts may kindly be condoned. Since the owners of the land have given complete possession of the land to me and other joint buyers below mentioned the notice was handed over to us in this week for further action, the delay in replying with the objection and actual facts may kindly be condoned. An agreement of sale was entered into on 14th June, 1967 between the owners of the land Sri Latif Khan and eight others and the buyers 1. C. Venkataswamy Naidu 2. N. Ramamoorthy, 3. R. Somasundaram 4. Smt. V. Samadhanamma 5. Smt. Indira Prasad. . Smt. V. L. Manoharam and 7. Smt. P. Ramanamma for a total consideration of Rs. 57,000/- the said lands were taken possession by the above said buyers through a separate deed on 16th January, 1969 by which time an amount of Rs,46,900/- was paid and since then we were in the possession of the same. We have been paying the necessary land revenue and the entire land is under our possession and no P. T. exists there. " ex. A23 is the decision of the Collector in the appeal submitted defendant No. 1 against the order of Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad West dated 19. 5. 1955. In para-1 (c) the order states as under:" (C) That along with the appellant, one Cherkoori Venkat Swamy Naidu, Raola Soma Sundaram, Smt. Vemoori Samadhanamma, Smt. Indira Prashad, Smt. V. L. Manoharam and Smt. Pichavar Ramanamma, total seven persons have purchased the land bearing S. No. 4 and 5/2, to the extent of the total area of 31 acres and 16 guntas in 1967, and as purchasers they are in the possession and enjoyment of the said lands by payment of land revenue. "on 25th July, 1975 he had also filed an affidavit before the Collector (Ex. A24) in which he stated;"that Lateef Khan and others are the owners of the land bearing S. No. 4 and 5/2, total measuring 31 acres and 16 guntas dry land, from whom this deponent along with other six persons has purchased the said land on 14. 6. 1967 and has been in the possession and enjoyment thereof by payment of land revenue. "he had also submitted written arguments before the Revenue Divisional Officer and in that also it was stated by him that the land had been purchased by him along with six others. 6. 1967 and has been in the possession and enjoyment thereof by payment of land revenue. "he had also submitted written arguments before the Revenue Divisional Officer and in that also it was stated by him that the land had been purchased by him along with six others. There was an appeal filed before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District by Nagpur Komaraiah and others. Here again, although it was filed only against defendant No. 1 but the defendant No. 1 defended the appeal on the strength of the agreement of sale in favour of himself and six others. There are number of documents in which the defendant No. 1 himself has all along maintained that the land had been purchased through sale agreement by him and six others. Then comes the suit being OS No. 123/76. It was filed by one N. Advaiah. This suit was filed for declaration that some part of the suit land was a graveyard and belonged to the villagers of the concerned village. The defendant No. l in the present case was the contesting defendant in the suit and he filed his written statement. The suit was dismissed. In the judgment, the learned District Munsiff stated :"the defendant contends that the land in S. Nos. 4 and 5 of Raidurg Panmakta village is patta land and that himself and some other have purchased the same under the agreement of sale dated 14. 6. 1967 for a total consideration of Rs. 57,000/- and paid consideration of Rs. 46,100/- and that he is in possession of the entire land in S. No. 4 and 5/2 from 16. 1. 1969. " these all documents show that always the defendant No. 1 maintained that the suit property had been purchased by him and six others. Therefore, we do not think that the trial Court decided this issue wrongly. Now, the defence of the defendant was two fold, one that since the plaintiffs did not sign the agreement of sale they lost the rights in the property. We are afraid that this argument cannot be accepted as there is no basis for accepting it. Even after entering of this agreement for number of years in each and every document to which a reference has been made hereinabove the defendant No. 1 maintained that six others were party to the sale agreement. We are afraid that this argument cannot be accepted as there is no basis for accepting it. Even after entering of this agreement for number of years in each and every document to which a reference has been made hereinabove the defendant No. 1 maintained that six others were party to the sale agreement. He himself contended that this agreement had been executed on his behalf and on behalf of six others. Secondly he contended that the land was mutated in his name and there was a decree in his favour in OS No. 156/84. This suit was filed by N. Ramamurthy against the erstwhile owners of the land. This was a suit for rectification of entries in pahani patrika for the years 1981-82 onwards. The plaintiffs and other defendants were not parties to this suit. Therefore, any decree passed behind their back would not bind them. Even otherwise, let us see what is the import of the decree. The decree was obtained almost by fraud and appears to be collusive as well. In first paragraph the plaintiff (D1 in the present case) said : "the plaintiff has purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 4 admeasuring 4 acres 16 gts and Sy. No. 5/2 admeasuring 27 acres situated at Raidurg Panchanama Maqta Tq. Rajendranagar, R. R. District in the year 1967 from the defendants and paid the entire consideration and the possession was also delivered to the plaintiff. And since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. "this statement in the suit itself was false. He had not referred to the agreement at all by which he had entered into an agreement for sale. He did not even mention any dates as to when he had purchased the land mentioned in the suit. Surprisingly the suit was not contested. The suit was filed on 23rd March, 1984 and it was decreed on 27th April, 1984 on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The suit was filed against the erstwhile owners, it was not even against the Revenue authorities. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 that there is bar on institution of suits against the Government under Section 8 of A. P. (Rights in Land) and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The suit was filed against the erstwhile owners, it was not even against the Revenue authorities. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 that there is bar on institution of suits against the Government under Section 8 of A. P. (Rights in Land) and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). But, under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, if a person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his rights, therefore suit was filed. Under Section 6 of the Act an entry in record of rights has a presumption of truth and any person affected by an entry in such a record of rights may within a period prescribed in Section 3 (3) of the Act apply for rectification of the entry before an officer prescribed. Since this has not been done therefore entries in revenue records have a presumption. He further stated that, even if a decree has been obtained by collusion or fraud that has to be challenged and unless it is declared on such challenge to be a fraud it has to be followed. In this regard he relies on judgments in Bhishundeo v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280 , Afsar Shaikh v. Soleman Bibi, AIR 1976 SC 163 and V. S. Vishwavidyalaya v. Rajkishore, AIR 1977 SC 615 . In bishaundeo s case (supra) the Supreme Court in para-25 said :"it is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice, however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6, Rule 4, Civil P. C. "the judgment in Afsar Shaikh s case (supra) is with regard to undue influence and the Court held that general allegation that plaintiff is simple old man of ninety who had reposed great confidence in the defendant is much too insufficient to amount to an averment of undue influence. Again in V. S. Vishwavidyalaya s case (supra) the Court said that in order to prove the allegations of collusion implying some kind of fraud it is not sufficient to state in general terms that there was collusion without more particulars. ( 8 ) WE have seen that, in the plaint itself the plaintiffs had stated that the suit was a result of collusion with the erstwhile owners and the defendant No. 1. The facts itself reveal an element of collusion. The suit was based on wrong facts. It is not even the case of the defendant No. l, even today, that he had an individual agreement of sale between himself and erstwhile owners. It was all along his case that he had purchased the land along with others from the vendors but in the suit he stated that he had purchased the land, he did not even give the particulars in the suit itself to show as to how and in what manner and when he had purchased the land from erstwhile owners. Therefore, these judgments would not come to his rescue. The judgment of trial Court will not be in any way an impediment to the plaintiffs and other co-owners from getting the relief from the Court. ( 9 ) MR. M. R. K. Chowdary, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that this decree of civil Court did not pass title, the title could have only been passed by a registered sale deed or a decree of the Court with respect to sale. He submits that revenue entries at best have a presumption which are rebuttable and which is settled position of law. He submits that revenue entries at best have a presumption which are rebuttable and which is settled position of law. He states that the compromise which was the basis of the decree in the suit was defeating all the laws. Therefore, on this count also this decree could not be an impediment. The other defence which was taken was that the plaintiffs did not come to the Court with clean hands. There was evidence for which there were no pleadings. We do not want to go into this question in view of our finding that the defendant No. 1 had always admitted the co-ownership of others along with him. ( 10 ) MR. S. Venkat Reddy, senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit was barred by limitation. This plea was not raised during the trial and no issue had been framed on this. But, in any case we have found that the suit was filed in the year 1990 and the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The plaintiffs in their plaint stated that the cause of action accrued on 18th November, 1989 when the defendant No. 7 notified the sale of plots over the suit land in the newspapers. The defendant never claimed his exclusive right over the property till he obtained a decree in the year 1984 and therefore the suit was not barred by limitation. Therefore, this plea cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) ANOTHER argument which was put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that admissions made in earlier judicial proceedings could not be basis for deciding the issues by the trial Court and as such the trial Court has committed mistake. It is not only the admissions made by the defendant No. 1 in judicial proceedings those have been taken into consideration but the admissions made by the defendant No. l and his conduct throughout has been taken into consideration. The agreement to sell is not an admission in judicial proceedings. Agreement by which the possession was handed over by the vendors is not an admission in judicial proceedings. Letters which were written by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs and others demanding shares of money incurred by him were not admissions in judicial proceedings. The agreement to sell is not an admission in judicial proceedings. Agreement by which the possession was handed over by the vendors is not an admission in judicial proceedings. Letters which were written by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs and others demanding shares of money incurred by him were not admissions in judicial proceedings. Even otherwise, the admissions made in judicial proceedings are piece of evidence in terms of Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act as has been held by Supreme Court in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. KM. Krishnaiah, AIR 1998 SCI 132. ( 12 ) ANOTHER plea which was tried to be raised was of adverse possession and ouster of plaintiffs over the suit land. This ground was not at all pleaded before the trial Court. No issues were framed and no evidence was led on this behalf. Till 1984 when the decree was obtained there was no evidence to show that the defendant No. 1 ever claimed adverse possession. Adverse possession in case of joint owners must be total ouster of the co-sharer as has been held in M. Arthur Paul Ratna Raju v. Vudese Carolina Augusta Bhushanabai, AIR 1999 SC 2633 . Therefore, this plea cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents further stated that new plea which is inconsistent with the earlier plea cannot be taken. In this regard he relies on many judgments including in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, AIR 1998 SC 618 , Seth Banarsi Das v. Dist. Magistrate and Collector, 1996 (2) SCC 689 and Arundhati mishra v. Sri Ram Charitra Pandey, 1994 (2) SCC 29 . ( 13 ) FOR these reasons, we hold that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be interfered with and the defendant No. l-appellant has miserably failed to establish that he was the exclusive owner of the suit land. ( 14 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.