Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1959 Supreme(SC) 76

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th April 1959.
S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.
Dolgobinda Paricha, Appellant
Versus
Nimai Charan Misra and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1954.
Advocates appeared
Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of Messrs. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for the Appellant; Mr. S. C. Isaacs, Senior Advocate, Mr. R. Patnaik, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3(a) to 3(c).

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, L.K.JHA, R.PATTANAIK, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.C.ISAACS, S.N.ANDLEY

The opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of a relationship of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.

Headnote:
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 32(5) AND 50 - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - RELATIONSHIP - OPINION EXPRESSED BY CONDUCT - SPECIAL MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE - RELEVANCY.
Fact of the Case:

The suit was contested by some of the defendants who were agnates of Lokenath Paricha and of whom the present appellant was one. The contesting defendants challenged the correctness of the pedigree alleged by the plaintiffs respondents and their main case was that Ahalya and Malabati were not the daughters of Lokenath Parichha but were daughters of Baidyanath Misra, father of Haripriya.
Finding of the Court:

We are accordingly of the view that the evidence of both Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra was admissible under S. 50 and the learned Judges of the High Court committed no error of law in admitting and considering that evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the document Ext. 1 was admissible under S. 32 (5) of the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the testimony of the witnesses Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra was admissible under S. 50 of the Evidence Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The statements in Ex. 1 were made before the precise question in dispute in the present litigation had arisen. 2. The evidence of Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra was admissible under S. 50 of the Evidence Act, as they had special means of knowledge on the subject of relationship and their conduct expressed their opinion on the existence of such relationship.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case is a Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1954 before the Supreme Court of India, decided on 27th April 1959 by a bench comprising S.K. Das, A.K. Sarkar, and K. Subba Rao, JJ., regarding the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (!) .
The core legal issues concern the admissibility of a pedigree document (Ex. 1) under Section 32(5) and the testimony of witnesses Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra under Section 50 of the Evidence Act (!) (!) .
The dispute arose in a title suit where plaintiffs claimed descent as sons of the half-sister of a previous owner, while defendants (agnates) challenged the pedigree, alleging the alleged daughters were actually daughters of a different man (!) (!) .
Section 50 of the Evidence Act makes relevant the opinion expressed by conduct regarding the existence of a relationship by a person who has special means of knowledge on the subject (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court held that the conduct of Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra (attending marriages and ceremonies as relations) expressed their opinion on the family relationship and was admissible because they had special means of knowledge due to their familial and neighborhood connections (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that Section 50 does not make general reputation admissible without conduct, and the opinion must be inferred from conduct that indicates an inner belief or conviction (!) (!) .
The Court also addressed the relationship between Section 50 and Section 60, ruling that while oral evidence must be direct, the conduct expressing the opinion can be proved by witnesses who observed the conduct, even if the person holding the opinion is not called (!) (!) (!) .
Regarding the document Ex. 1, the Court found it admissible under Section 32(5) as it was a statement by a dead person (Satyabadi) relating to a relationship by blood, made before the question in dispute was raised (!) (!) .
The Court rejected the argument that the statement was made ante litem motam only if the specific relationship between Lokenath and his daughters was in dispute in the earlier suit; since that specific relationship was not in issue in the 1917 suit, the statement remained admissible (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the special means of knowledge of the declarant (Satyabadi) was independently established by the admissible oral evidence of the witnesses, avoiding circular reasoning (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's view that both the document and the witness testimonies were admissible (!) (!) (!) .

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Orissa is from the judgment and decree of the said High Court dated March 9, 1951 by which it substantially affirmed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur in Title Suit No. 16 of 1944 except for a modification of the decree for damages awarded by the latter. Two questions of law arise in this appeal, one relating to the interpretation of S. 32, sub-s. (5) and the other to S. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act.

2. The material facts relating to the appeal are susceptible of a simple and concise statement. Three persons Nimai Charan Misra, Lakshiminarayan Misra and Baikuntha Pati brought a suit for a declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of certain properties details whereof are not necessary for our purpose. This suit was numbered Title Suit 16 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur. The claim of the plaintiffs, now respondents before us, was founded on the following pedigree :

The last male owner was Satyananda who died unmarried sometime in 1902-1903, and his mother Haripriya succeeded to the estate. She lived till 1942; but in 1916 she had sold a portion of the property to one Indumati, daughter of Dharanidhar Misra (plaintiff s witness No. 4) and some of the reversioners, namely, Natabar and Janardan, who were agnates of Haripriya s husband Lokenath Parichha, brought a suit challenging the alienation. This suit was Suit No. 31 of 1917 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur. The suit was decreed on August 31, 1918, and the alienation was declared to be without legal necessity and not binding on the reversion after the death of Haripriya. In 1929 was passed the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929) which inter alia gave to a sister s son a place in the order of Mitakshara succession higher than the agnates; before the amending Act a sister s son ranked as a bandhu, but under it he succeeded next after the sister. The question whether a half-sister was entitled to get the benefit of the amending Act gave rise to a difference of opinion, but the Privy Council held in 1942, settling the difference then existing between the various High Courts, that the term sister included a half-sister ; but a full sister and a half-sister did not take together and the latter took only in default of the full sister. (See Mst. Sahodra v. Ram Babu, 69 Ind App 145. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed on the strength of the pedigree which they set up that they were sons of the half-sister of Satyanand and therefore came before the agnates.

3. The suit was contested by some of the defendants who were agnates of Lokenath Paricha and of whom the present appellant was one. The contesting defendants challenged the correctness of the pedigree alleged by the plaintiffs respondents and their main case was that Ahalya and Malabati were not the daughters of Lokenath Parichha but were daughters of Baidyanath Misra, father of Haripriya. The relevant pedigree which the appellant set up was -

4. As the High Court has put it, the essential controversy between the parties centred round the question if the plaintiffs respondents were the sons of the daughters of Lokenath Parichha by his first wife Satyabhama. On this question the parties gave both oral and documentary evidence. On a consideration of that evidence the learned Subordinate Judge held that they were the sons of the daughters of Lokenath Parichha and on that finding the suit was decreed. There was an appeal to the High Court, and it affirmed the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge. The High Court relied on Ex. 1, a petition dated 2-11-1917, which Satyabadi on his own behalf and on behalf of his brothers Baikunth Pati and Dasarath Pati had filed in Suit No. 31 of 1917; this petition contained a pedigree which showed that Ahalya, Brindabati, and Malabati were daughters of Lokenath Par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1959 Supreme(SC) 76

The opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of a relationship of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.

Cases Referred (2)