JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.4.2002, passed by First Appellate Court, i.e. Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Nainital, in Appeal No. 43 of 1998 Smt. Waziran and others versus Har Prakash, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1998 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Kashipur in O.S. No. 249 of 1984, was set aside. 2. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the findings in civil suit No. 94 of 1955 of the Court of Munsif Kashipur Bishambhar Nath Vs. Bankey Lal and others having been filed in representative capacity were binding on every member of Sweeper Community?. (2) Whether the disputed sale-deed dated 5.4.1969 as well as sale-deed dated 5.2.1968 of disputed land affected by the principle of Lis-pendence and were vitiated by doctrine of Lis-pendence?. (3) Whether Smt. Ganeshia, when she herself was not the owner of the land in dispute, could pass title of the land to her daughter Smt. Gangoo and consequently the disputed sale-deed in favour of the respondents also did not pass any title?. (4) Whether the respondents were estopped by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence when they did not join the subsequent litigation?. (5) Whether judgment not inter-se between the parties is admissible in subsequent litigation?. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Mohd. Ishaque (since deceased) has filed suit against defendant Har Prakash and others for a decree of mandatory injunction. Smt. Ganeshia Devi mother of Smt. Gangoo Devi, defendant in the suit, was the original owner of the disputed property. She had transferred the property in dispute vide sale-deed dated 6.2.1968 to Smt. Gangoo Devi. Thereafter Smt. Gangoo Devi transferred the property in question to plaintiff Mohd. Ishaque and Smt. Waziran by way of registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1969 and they entered into possession of the land in question but the defendants had illegally started construction on the land in dispute. 4. The defendants pleaded in the W.S. that the plaintiff did not purchase the property from Smt. Gangoo Devi and the sale-deed dated 5.4.1969 is a forged document and the defendant is in possession of the land since 13.11.1980. This fact has been specifically stated in para-15 of the W.S. that the defendant-appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 4. The defendants pleaded in the W.S. that the plaintiff did not purchase the property from Smt. Gangoo Devi and the sale-deed dated 5.4.1969 is a forged document and the defendant is in possession of the land since 13.11.1980. This fact has been specifically stated in para-15 of the W.S. that the defendant-appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1800/- to Smt. Gangoo Devi and he entered into possession of the property. 5. The another defendant Smt. Gangoo Devi pleaded in her W.S. that she had not executed the sale deed dated 5.4.1969 in favour of plaintiffs. 6. The learned trial court framed issues in the suit and after hearing parties and considering the evidence of parties dismissed the suit of plaintiff/ respondents. The defendant had filed un-registered document before the trial court in respect of land in question and alleged that he had got possession of the land from Smt. Gangoo Devi on 13.11.1980 on payment of Rs. 1,800/- to her. The trial court on the basis of above document as well as considering this fact that the defendant/appellant had filed Suit No. 281/1971 before Munsif Kashipur. In that suit Ram Kishan, Budha and Smt. Ganeshia Devi were parties, which was dismissed by the appellate court. In that suit Smt. Ganeshia was not held owner on the ground of identifiability of the land and the plaintiff/appellant did not raise any objection in that suit regarding his possession on the land in question and the suit was dismissed. 7. Against the judgment and decree passed by trial court appeal No. 43 of 1998 was preferred. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree and has recorded finding that the sale-deed dated 5.4.1969 was proved by P.W.1 Mohd. Ishaque and other witnesses and the attesting witnesses were not alive at that point of time. 7. Against the judgment and decree passed by trial court appeal No. 43 of 1998 was preferred. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree and has recorded finding that the sale-deed dated 5.4.1969 was proved by P.W.1 Mohd. Ishaque and other witnesses and the attesting witnesses were not alive at that point of time. So far as the title of appellant/defendant on the land in question is concerned, the First Appellate Court has held that he has failed to establish his title on the basis of un-registered agreement and admittedly the agreement was executed after 1.1.1977 after the amendment made by Act No. 57 of 1976 in Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, which makes the provision mandatory that every agreement for sale should be in writing and registered and if the agreement for sale is not properly stamped the same do not have any evidentiary value as per provision of section 35 of stamp Act and can not be read in evidence and that can only be used for collateral purpose for realization of money from the person who execute the deed. Further presumption can be drawn about the execution of a registered document as per provision of Section 90(2) of Indian Evidence Act. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Answers to the substantial questions of law is given as under:- Answer to substantial question No.1: ‘Whether the findings in civil suit No. 94 of 1955 of the Court of Munsif Kashipur Bishambhar Nath Vs. Bankey Lal and others having been filed in representative capacity were binding on every member of Sweeper Community?.’ This fact is not disputed that suit No. 94/1955 was filed under Order-1 rule-8 C.P.C. in a representative capacity and that suit was decided without any public notice. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.K. Wangolsana Singh versus Gopinath Devta and others, reported in J.T. 1988 (1) S.C. 24, has held that compliance of Order-1 Rule-8 C.P.C. in a suit filed in a representative capacity is mandatory in nature and if no public notice was issued in the suit the decree passed in that suit has no binding effect to any party. Therefore this substantial question of law is answered accordingly and it is held that there is no binding effect of C.S. No. 94/1995 to any party. Answer to substantial question No.2: ‘Whether the disputed sale-deed dated 5.4.1969 as well as sale-deed dated 5.2.1968 of disputed land affected by the principle of Lis-pendence and were vitiated by doctrine of Lis- pendence?. Since the suit was not decided on merit and that was decided by compromise and no public notice was issued, therefore, decree of compromise is nullity in the eyes of law hence the principle of Lis-pendence has no effect in the case at hand. The question is answered accordingly. Answer to substantial question No.3: ‘Whether Smt. Ganeshia, when she herself was not the owner of the land in dispute, could pass title of the land to her daughter Smt. Gangoo and consequently the disputed sale-deed in favour of the respondents also did not pass any title?. The appellant as well as respondents claim title through Smt. Gangoo Devi, who got title of property in dispute by way of sale deed dated 5.2.1968 from her mother Smt. Ganeshia, therefore, the appellant who claims his title through unregistered document from Smt. Gangoo Devi, cannot raise the question about the authenticity of sale deed dated 5.2.1968. The another sale deed dated 5.4.1969 has been made by Smt. Gangoo Devi in favour of respondent and the same is a registered document. The question is answered against the appellant. Answer to substantial question No.4: ‘Whether the respondents were estopped by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence when they did not join the subsequent litigation?.’ Since the respondent and his predecessor Gangoo Devi were not made party and the defendant/appellant Smt. Gangoo Devi only and two others were made party in the suit No. 281 of 1971 and the sale-deed in favour of respondent was executed by Smt. Gangoo Devi prior to file of above suit, therefore, there is no question of estoppel against the respondent, but at the same time the principle of estoppel would apply to appellant since he is also claiming the title through Smt. Gangoo Devi therefore the appellant could not say that Gangoo Devi was not owner of the property in question. Rather the appellant is estopped by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence to question the ownership of Smt. Gangoo Devi. The question is answered accordingly. Rather the appellant is estopped by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence to question the ownership of Smt. Gangoo Devi. The question is answered accordingly. Answer to substantial question No. 5: ‘Whether judgment not inter-se between the parties is admissible in subsequent litigation?. In view of answer given to substantial question Nos. 1 to 4, this question stand answered accordingly. In view of answers given to substantial questions of law, above, this second appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The Appeal is dismissed. Interim order dated 27.04.2002, passed by this Court, is vacated.