https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197402 A prior decree in representative litigation did not bind the defendants under Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC because compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was not proved, and the omission was not shown to be inadvertent or non-prejudicial. The earlier judgment could be used only as evidence of a prior assertion of rights under Section 13 of the Evidence Act, not as conclusive proof of exclusive title. On the injunction issue, the materials left ownership uncertain, showed common use of the disputed area, and did not establish exclusive ownership or exclusive possession; a mandatory injunction for removal of the construction was therefore not justified. en-us Tue, 19 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:34:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197402 A prior decree in representative litigation did not bind the defendants under Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC because compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was not proved, and the omission was not shown to be inadvertent or non-prejudicial. The earlier judgment could be used only as evidence of a prior assertion of rights under Section 13 of the Evidence Act, not as conclusive proof of exclusive title. On the injunction issue, the materials left ownership uncertain, showed common use of the disputed area, and did not establish exclusive ownership or exclusive possession; a mandatory injunction for removal of the construction was therefore not justified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Feb 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197402