Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
C. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2165 OF 2009
Decided on : 14-02-2020
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 74 and 76 – Public document – Entry in School Register may not be a public document and must be proved in accordance with law – Public document in terms of Section 74 of Evidence Act, 1872 includes documents forming records of official bodies or tribunals – Section 76 of Act gives a right to any person to demand a copy of a public document on payment of a fee together with certificate written at foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document – Certified copies may be produced in proof of contents of public documents or parts of public documents of which they purport to be copies. (Para 14)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Suit for partition and separate possession – Plaintiff claimed that he was minor at the time of death of his father in year 1963 and that he continued as a member of joint Hindu family in joint possession and enjoyment of property of joint Hindu family – Plaintiff asserted that his signatures were obtained on a few documents and that he was not aware of contents of same nor did he execute any document thereof and understood what they were – Plaintiff has not produced any official from school to prove that such certificate was from record of school nor did he examine Head Master who has issued such certificate – Plaintiff has also not examined his mother who was available at the time when evidence of plaintiff was being recorded – High Court gravely erred in law in interfering in findings of fact recorded by First Appellate Court – Onus was on plaintiff to prove that he was a minor at the time of execution of release deed – He failed to prove his date of birth and his suit is to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by trial court and First Appellate Court – High Court in Second Appeal could not reappreciate evidence to take a different view that such document is proved – Illegality on account of alleged improper consideration does not give rise to a substantial question of law – Findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless findings are perverse – High Court could not have interfered with findings of fact – Appeal allowed and suit dismissed. (Paras 2, 5, 19, 20, 23, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Defendants are in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by High Court of Karnataka on 14th June, 2005 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff - C. Jayarama Reddy was allowed by setting aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below.
Findings of the Court:
High Court erred in law in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court as affirmed by First Appellate Court. The findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless, the findings are perverse. High Court could not have interfered with the findings of the fact.
Result : Appeal allowed.
In legal judgments, the term "relinquishment" is used to describe the act by which a party voluntarily abandons or surrenders their rights, interests, or claims in a particular property or legal matter. The judgment may analyze whether the act was performed voluntarily, with clear intention, and in accordance with required formalities to establish the validity of the relinquishment. The judgment often considers whether the relinquishment was free from undue influence, coercion, or fraud, and whether it effectively resulted in the loss of rights by the relinquishing party, thereby affecting the rights and interests of other parties involved (!) .
In essence, the judgment defines relinquishment as a deliberate and voluntary act that leads to the forfeiture of rights or interests, emphasizing the importance of clear intention and proper procedure to uphold the validity of such acts (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Hemant Gupta, J.
The defendants are in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 14th June, 2005 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff - C. Jayarama Reddy was allowed by setting aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below. The High Court answered the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below suffer from illegality on account of improper consideration of Ex.P1, i.e., school leaving certificate?"
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of l/4th share in the Suit schedule property between himself and his three brothers who are defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Defendant Nos. 4 to 17 are the persons who have purchased the property from the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the brothers. The plaintiff claimed that he was minor at the time of death of his father in the year 1963 and that he continued as a member of the joint Hindu family in joint possession and enjoyment of the property of joint Hindu family. The plaintiff asserted that his signatures were obtained on a few documents and that he was not aware of the contents of the same nor did he execute any document thereof and understood what they were. Para 6 of the plaint reads thus:
"6. The plaintiff was kept in the dark about the family affairs and implicitly obeyed the dictates of the other defendants and did whatever he was asked to do. In fact, his signatures were taken on few documents and the plaintiff is not aware of the contents nor did he execute any document thereof or understands what they were."
3. In the written statement filed, it was asserted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and their father were members of joint Hindu family till 15th June, 1963. The plaintiff demanded and wished to separate himself from the joint Hindu family and executed a release deed on 15th June, 1963 and severed all the connections from the joint Hindu family when he received consideration of Rs.5,000/- for his share and relinquished all his rights in the family. The plaintiff went away from the family after execution of the release deed and lived at Kempapura village since 1963 in his father-in-law's house. It was denied that the plaintiff was minor at the time of death of his father. It was further pleaded that he married one Mamjamma d/o Nanjundappa of Kempapura on 29th June, 1964.
4. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 16 issues. However, the relevant issues are Issue Nos. 1 and 2 at this stage, which read as under:
"1. Whether the plaintiff was a minor in 1963?
2. Whether the plaintiff separated from the joint family and executed a release deed dated 15.06.1963? If so, is the same valid and is the plaintiff entitled to a share?"
5. The plaintiff in order to prove that he was minor produced School Leaving Certificate Ex. P/1 and also examined his brother PW.2 C. Ramaswamy Reddy. The brother did not depose about the age of the plaintiff at the time of death of his father. The plaintiff has not produced any official from the school to prove that such certificate was from the record of the school nor did he examine Head Master who has issued such certificate. The plaintiff has also not examined his mother who was available at the time when the evidence of the plaintiff was being recorded.
6. The learned trial court on Issue No. 1 found that the registered release deed (Ex.D/1) dated 15th June, 1963 mentions the age of the plaintiff as about 22 years and subsequent to the execution of the release deed the plaintiff married Nanjamma on 29th June, 1964. The registered marriage deed Ex D-2, produced by the defendants, also proves that the age of the plaintiff was 24 years. The trial court did not rely on the date of birth of the plaintiff mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate (Ex.P/1) as the same was not put by the Head Master of the School and the plaintiff did not examine the Head Master o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
