Back
1935 Supreme(SC) 63
Privy Council At Allahabad
Sir George Rankin, Salvesen , Justice Lords Roche, JJ.
Bhojraj -Appellant
Versus
Sita Ram and others -Resopndent
Appeals Nos. 54 and 55 of 1932; Allahabad Appeals Nos. 9 and 10 of 1930
Decided On : 22-11-1935
W. Wallach, J.M. Parikh
Presumptions of legal necessity cannot contradict existing evidence. Trial court findings on witness credibility and pedigree should be upheld by appellate courts unless perverse, provided the evidence is consistent and corroborated by external circumstances like funeral rites and kinship terms.
Headnote:(A) Property Law - Alienation by Widows - Legal Necessity - Presumptions - Where there is evidence justifying the conclusions of the courts below that transfers were not for legal necessity, presumptions arising from the lapse of time cannot be used to supplement or contradict such evidence.
(B) Evidence - Pedigree - Appreciation of Oral Evidence - Where a trial court, having the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses, accepts a large body of consistent oral evidence to prove pedigree, an appellate court should not differ from such findings on credibility unless the evidence is contradictory, inherently improbable, or unworthy of acceptance.
(C) Evidence - Corroboration of Lineage - Evidence of kinship, such as the use of specific dining terms and the performance of funeral rites for the deceased and their kin by the claimants' line of descent, serves as significant corroboration for establishing pedigree.
(D) Civil Procedure - Appellate Scope - An appellate court should not substitute its own view on the credibility of witnesses for that of the court of first instance unless the findings are manifesty perverse or unbelievable.
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed by claimants seeking possession of properties formerly belonging to a deceased landowner, asserting they were the next heirs and reversioners. The properties had been alienated by the landowner's widows to the predecessors in title of the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the plaintiffs had established their pedigree and that the transfers were not made for legal necessity. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their pedigree, although it agreed that the transfers were not for legal necessity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the lack of legal necessity for the transfers were correct. It further held that the trial court's findings on the plaintiffs' pedigree were based on credible, consistent oral evidence corroborated by external circumstances and documents, and should be restored.
Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit as having or taking title from the next heirs or reversioners to the property; (2) Whether the transfers to the defendants and their predecessors in title were effected for legal necessity and were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that presumptions of necessity cannot override positive evidence. Regarding pedigree, the consistency of the oral evidence, its ability to withstand cross-examination, and its alignment with external facts—such as the performance of funeral rites and the attestation of documents by ancestors—justified the trial court's acceptance of the lineage. The court emphasized that appellate courts should defer to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility unless the findings are perverse.
Result: Appeals allowed.
These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 26th March 1930, which reversed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The dispute was as to the property of one Tej Raj, a wealthy Brahman landowner, which was situated at Kusyari and elsewhere in the district of Mainpuri. Tej Raj died in 1855 leaving surviving him three widows and a deceased son's widow to whom Tej Raj's widows give a portion of the property in lieu of her right to maintenance. These four ladies at various dates from 1873 onwards alienated the property in favour of the predecessors in title of the defendants and by 1924 when Mt. Bakht Kunwar, the youngest widow of Tej Raj and the last survivor of the four ladies died, all the property in question in the suit was in the possession of the defendants. In 1890 a declaratory suit had been brought by plaintiffs other than the present plaintiffs purporting to claim as reversioners to the property of Tej Raj and seeking to challenge the validity of the alienation of such property. This suit failed owing to the operations of the rules of limitation applicable to such declaratory actions and no question of pedigree was ever debated or decided in that suit. On the death of the last surviving widow, Mt. Bakht Kunwar, the present suit was filed on 17th November 1924, claiming possession of the properties formerly belonging to Tej Raj and then held by the defendants. The main issues which arose for decision and were decided by the Subordinate Judge were:
(1) Were the plaintiffs entitled to maintain the suit as having or taking title from the next heirs or reversioners to the property of Tej Raj?
(2) Were the transfers to the defendants and their predecessors in title effected for legal necessity and valid?
There were other issues which were subsidiary or have now ceased to be of importance. The only one of these which need be mentioned is an issue as to certain houses and groves in respect of which the Subordinate Judge excepted the houses, though not the groves, from the operation of his decree which was otherwise in accordance with the plaintiffs' claim. The Subordinate Judge found on both of the issues (1) and (2) in favour of the plaintiffs and in consequence granted them the relief they sought. Upon appeal the Judges of the High Court agreed with the Subordinate Judge on issue (2) in holding that the transfers were not for legal necessity or valid. They also held as to the minor matter of the houses that the transfers were not for necessity and were not valid. But the main divergence of view was on issue (1). As to this the High Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their pedigree and dismissed the suit on that ground. The appellant seeks the restoration of the decree of the Subordinate Judge and the defendants-respondents seek to support the decree of the High Court both on the grounds upon which the Judges of the High Court based it and also by contending that the transfers were for necessity and are binding. This last matter can be shortly dealt with.
There are concurrent findings in the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs, and their Lordships see no reason to doubt that those findings are correct. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that owing to the lapse of time, as a matter of law, necessity should be presumed and in support of the contention the case of Chintamanibhatla Venkata Reddi v. Rani of Wadhwan , 1920 PC 64=55 IC 538=47 IA 6=43 Mad 541 (PC) was relied upon. The judgment in that case does not in the opinion of their Lordships support the contention of the respondents. Here, as in the case cited, regard must be had to the amount of evidence likely to be available after the lapse of a long time and presumptions should be allowed to fill in gaps disclosed in the evidence, but in this case there is evidence justifying the conclusions of the Courts belo
