Judgment This Second Appeal is preferred against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in A.S.No.59/1996 whereby Permanent Injunction was granted in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs in the suit and the legal representatives of the deceased 1st Plaintiff are the Respondents. For convenience the parties are referred as per their array in the suit in O.S.No.656/1988. 2. The suit property is 0.94 cents in S.No.313/6. It belonged to Palani Padayachi and his three sons. Genealogy of Palani Padayachi and the relevant sale deeds and the relevant sale transactions in respect of the suit S.No.313/6 are as follows:- Suit property relates to 0.94 acre purchased by the Plaintiffs under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 19.02.1964. Defendant and his family members had purchased certain extent of property. Defendant claiming title to the suit property is causing obstruction to the Plaintiffs enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, Plaintiffs have filed the suit for Permanent Injunction. 3. Denying the plaint averments, Defendant has filed written statement contending that his mother had obtained sale of 24 cents under Ex.B1 sale deed dated 110. 1945 from Vellaiya Padayachi and his son. Defendants father purchased 08 ½ cents on 110. 1952 under Ex.B2 sale deed from Vellaiya padayachi. Defendants father also purchased 20 cents under Ex.B3 sale deed dated 06.09.1969 from Deivasigamani. That apart, Defendant had also purchased 10 ½ cents under Ex.B4 sale deed dated 21. 1988 from Kaliyaperumal and 35 cents under Ex.B5 sale deed dated 13. 1988 from Singaravelu. According to the Defendant, he and his family are entitled to 98 cents out of 2.80 acres in suit S.No.313/6. Since the Defendant also owned property, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. 4. On the above pleadings, relevant issues were framed. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that in the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.521/1962 the Defendants predecessor Thangarasu had attached the Plaintiffs property 0.94 cents and the Defendant is estopped from denying the same. Referring to Ex.A2 sale deed dated 19.02.1964 and the Kist receipts, trial court held that the Plaintiff has been in possession of 0.94 cents. Trial court further held that the Defendant who claims through Thangarasu cannot contend that the Plaintiffs are entitled to only 84 cents. Upon analysis of evidence, trial court held that the Plaintiffs are entitled to 94 cents and granted Permanent Injunction. 5. Trial court further held that the Defendant who claims through Thangarasu cannot contend that the Plaintiffs are entitled to only 84 cents. Upon analysis of evidence, trial court held that the Plaintiffs are entitled to 94 cents and granted Permanent Injunction. 5. Confirming the findings of the trial court, lower Appellate court also held that Plaintiffs have established their title and possession to 94 cents. Confirming the findings of the trial court, lower Appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Defendant. 6. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated: .(1) Whether in law the Courts below are right in overlooking that the respondents are estopped from staking a claim in the suit properties as the first plaintiff had signed as a witness in Ex.B4, sale deed, in favour of the respondents? .(2) Whether in law the Courts below are not wrong in relying on the findings in a prior suit in which neither the respondent nor his predecessors were parties? .(3) Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court is not wrong in omitting to frame proper points for determination as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and laid down in 1997-1-L.W-764 DB? .7. Assailing the concurrent findings, Ms. Nilopher, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that under Ex.A1 settlement deed, suit S.No.313/6 is not covered which would show that Chinnammal did not have any right in S.No.313/6. The learned counsel for the Appellant would further submit that the Courts below erred in observing that the .Judgments in O.S.No.521/1962 and O.S.No.946/1964 would be binding upon the Defendant. The learned counsel for the Appellant would further submit that when the Defendant is not a party to the earlier proceedings that Judgments would not be binding upon the Defendant and in any event those Judgments cannot take the place of proof. The learned counsel for the Appellant would further submit that the first Plaintiff being an attestor in Ex.B4 sale deed, the Courts below ought to have held that the first Plaintiff is estopped by attestation. The learned counsel for the Appellant would further submit that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained. 8. Supporting the findings of the Courts below, Mr. The learned counsel for the Appellant would further submit that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained. 8. Supporting the findings of the Courts below, Mr. R. Gururaj, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that attachment of the property to an extent of 94 cents in O.S.No.521/1962 and the decree in O.S.No.946/1964 would convincingly establish Plaintiffs title to 0.94 cents and the Courts below were right in granting the decree. Submitting that the Defendant himself has admitted Ex.A2 sale deed, and that he cannot withdraw such admission, the learned counsel for the Respondents placed reliance upon AIR 1960 SC 100 (Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others); AIR 1977 SC 1724 (Thiru John v. The Returning Officer and others) and AIR 1981 SC 2085 (Ramji Dayawala and sons (P) Ltd., v. Invest Import). 9. In the suit S.No.313/6 out of total extent of 2.80 acres, Plaintiffs were claiming title of 94 cents under Ex.A2 sale deed dated 19.02.1964. Vendors of Plaintiffs claimed title under Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 29. 1961 executed in their favour by Athilakshmi Ammal and Chinnammal. .10. The learned counsel for the Appellant firstly contended that Ex.A1 settlement deed does not cover the suit Survey Number 313/6 which would show that the settlor themselves had claimed no right in the suit S.No.313/6. This contention does not merit acceptance, since it is factually incorrect. By careful perusal of Ex.A1 settlement deed, it is seen that S.No.313/6 is well covered under Ex.A1 settlement deed whereby the settlors had settled 94 cents out of 2.80 acres in favour of Kaliyaperumal and chinnathambi then Minors. Under Ex.A2 sale deed, the vendors/Minor Kaliaperumal and Minor Chinnathambi had sold an extent of 94 cents to the Plaintiffs 1 to 3. In his evidence D.W.1/Defendant admits the sale deed Ex.A2 executed in favour of the Plaintiffs. As held by the Courts below when the Defendant has admitted Ex.A2 sale deed, he cannot dispute the extent stated in Ex.A2 sale deed. Having admitted Ex.A2 sale deed, it is not open to the Defendant to contend that what was sold under Ex.A2 was only 84 cents. 11. According to the Defendant, Plaintiffs are entitled to only 84 cents. It is the further case of the Defendant that Kaliaperumal sold 10 ½ cents to the Defendant under Ex.B4 sale deed dated 27.01.1988. Having admitted Ex.A2 sale deed, it is not open to the Defendant to contend that what was sold under Ex.A2 was only 84 cents. 11. According to the Defendant, Plaintiffs are entitled to only 84 cents. It is the further case of the Defendant that Kaliaperumal sold 10 ½ cents to the Defendant under Ex.B4 sale deed dated 27.01.1988. Defendant and his father and mother have purchased various extent of properties in suit S.No.313/6 as narrated in Para-3. 12. There is overwhelming evidence and circumstances falsifying the defence version that the Plaintiffs are entitled to only 84 cents. As pointed out earlier, under Ex.A2 sale deed, 94 cents was sold to the Plaintiffs. Ex.A3 is the Patta in the name of predecessors- in-title of the Plaintiffs. Ex.A4 is the Patta standing in the joint names of 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs and other joint co-owners. Exs.A7 to A37 are the Kist receipts paid by the Plaintiffs for fasalis from 1375 to 1397. Having regard to the revenue records and number of Kist receipts produced by the Plaintiffs, Courts below were justified in holding that the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of suit property. 13. Earlier, the Defendants predecessors-in-title, Thangarasu had filed O.S.No.521/1962 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore against the predecessors of the Plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.5475. As seen from Exs.A40 and A41, Thangarasu has filed I.A.No.1476/1962 for attaching the properties of the Plaintiffs predecessors – Minor Kaliaperumal and others. In the said Petition, Thangarasu had shown the suit property 94 cents as belonging to the Plaintiffs pre-decessors and thereby Thangarasu – Predecessor of the Defendant has admitted the title of predecessors of Plaintiffs to an extent of 94 cents. It is relevant to note that Singaravelu purchased the property from Thangarasu and the Defendant in turn purchased the property from the said Singaravelu. When the Defendants pre-decessors-in-title had acknowledged the Plaintiffs title to an extent of 94 cents, it is not open to the Defendant to turn round and contend that the Plaintiffs are entitled to only 84 cents. .14. The Judgment in O.S.No.946/1964 is yet another factor to be reckoned with. Plaintiffs have instituted suit in O.S.No.946/1964 against one Rogambal and obtained declaration and permanent injunction. .14. The Judgment in O.S.No.946/1964 is yet another factor to be reckoned with. Plaintiffs have instituted suit in O.S.No.946/1964 against one Rogambal and obtained declaration and permanent injunction. As is seen from Ex.A38 copy of decree, Plaintiffs have shown 94 cents as the property belonging to them and obtained declaration and permanent injunction for the said 94 cents. Appeal preferred against the Judgment in A.S.No.262/1966 was also dismissed. 15. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant vehemently contended that the Defendant was not a party to the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.946/1964 and therefore, the Judgment will not be binding upon the Defendant and the Courts below erred in arriving the conclusion on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.946/1964. 16. It is fairly well settled that a Judgment not interse between the parties is admissible in evidence as evidence of assertion of right to property in dispute. In 1998 (3) M.L.J. 49 (SC) (Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. Krishnaiah), Supreme Court has held as follows: "In our view, this contention is clearly contrary to the rulings of this Court as well as those of the Privy Council. In Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and others, ( AIR 1954 S.C. 379 : 1954 S.C.A. 878: 1954 S.C.J. 408: (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1 : 67 L.W. 515: (1954) 1 M.L.J. 630 ), speaking on behalf of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, Venkatarama Ayyar, J, held that a judgment not inter partes is admissible in evidence under Sec.13 of the Evidence Act as evidence of an assertion of a right to property in dispute. A contention that judgments other than those falling under Secs.40 to 44 of the Evidence Act were not admissible in evidence was expressly rejected. Again B.K. Mukerjee, J (as he then was) speaking on behalf of a Bench of four learned Judges in Sital Das v. Sant Ram and others. (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 606), held that a previous judgment not inter partes, was admissible in evidence under Sec.13 of the Evidence Act as a transaction in which a right to property was asserted and recognized. In fact, much earlier, Lord Lindley held in the Privy Council in Dinamoni v. Braimohini, (1902) I.L.R. 29 Cal. (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 606), held that a previous judgment not inter partes, was admissible in evidence under Sec.13 of the Evidence Act as a transaction in which a right to property was asserted and recognized. In fact, much earlier, Lord Lindley held in the Privy Council in Dinamoni v. Braimohini, (1902) I.L.R. 29 Cal. 190 (P.C), that a previous judgment not inter partes was admissible in evidence under Sec.13 to show who the parties were, what the lands in dispute were and who was declared entitled to retain them. The criticism of the judgment in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini and Ram Ranjan Chakerbati v. Ram Narain Singh, (1895) I.L.R. 22 Cal. 533 (P.C): L.R. 22 I.A. 60: 5 M.L.J. 7, by Sir John Woodroffe in his commentary on the Evidence Act (1931 P.181) was not accepted by Lord Blanesburgh in Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunderr A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 157: L.R. 61 I.A. 286: 67 M.L.J. 274." 17. In Govindarasu Udayar v. Pattu and others, (1999) 2 M.L.J. 218 ), S.S. Subramani, J after referring to a number of decisions and in particular to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M.Krishnan, (1998) 3 M.L.J. 49 : AIR 1998 S.C.W. 945) has held that: "a previous judgment not inter partes is admissible in evidence under Sec.13 of the Evidence Act as evidence of an assertion of a right to property in dispute." Referring to the above decision in 2000 (3) M.L.J. 288 (Ramasamy and others v. K.C. Doraisamy), Justice K. Sampath has held that the decision not inter partes would be admissible in evidence under Sec.13 of Evidence Act. Though the Judgment in O.S.No.946/1964 is not inter partes, the same is admissible in evidence as piece of evidence asserting title of the Plaintiffs to an extent of 94 cents. 18. In Ex.B4 sale deed (dated 21. 1988) in favour of the Defendant by Kaliaperumal, deceased first Plaintiff has signed as attesting witness. Laying emphasis upon Ex.B4 sale deed, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant contended that the deceased first Plaintiff having attested Ex.B4 sale deed is estopped from denying the Defendants title. 19. Attestation proves no more than that the signature of an executing party has been attached to a document in the presence of a witness. Laying emphasis upon Ex.B4 sale deed, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant contended that the deceased first Plaintiff having attested Ex.B4 sale deed is estopped from denying the Defendants title. 19. Attestation proves no more than that the signature of an executing party has been attached to a document in the presence of a witness. It does not involve the witness in any knowledge of the contents of the deed nor offer him with notice of its provisions. It can at the best, be used for the purpose of cross-examination but by itself, it will neither create estoppel nor imply consent. 20. In A.I.R. 1922 Privy Council 20 (Pandurang Krishnaji v. M.Tukaram and others), the Privy Council has held as follows:- "The attestation of a deed by itself estops a man from denying nothing whatsoever excepting that he has witnessed the execution of the deed. It conveys, neither directly nor by implication, any knowledge of the contents of the document and it ought not to be put forward alone for the purpose of establishing that a man consented to the transaction which the document effects." 21. Attestation by itself would not operate as estoppel. Where it is shown by an independent evidence that, when becoming an attesting witness he must have fully understood what the transaction was, his attestation may support the inference that he was a consenting party. Whether an attesting witness was a consenting party to the document is question of fact and should be determined with reference to the circumstances of each case. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that attestation of the Plaintiff in Ex.B4 sale deed would not operate as estoppel. That concurrent findings cannot be said to be improper or perverse warranting interference. 22. Upon consideration of evidence, Courts below rightly held that the Plaintiffs have established title to 94 cents. The courts below concurrently recorded findings of fact upholding the Plaintiffs title to 94 cents and the long possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs. There is no reason warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 23. In the result, the Judgment of the lower Appellate court in A.S.No.59/1996 dated 20.08.1997 on the file of Subordinate Court, Panruti (arising out of the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.656/1988 dated 27.09.1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti) is confirmed and this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.