( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the decree passed against them by the learned 2nd joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 330 ot 1980 and confirmed n Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1984 by the learned Additional District Judge, chandrapur, the original defendants have preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) ONE Ramabai, widow of Dharma khobragade, mother ot the respondent and appellant No. 3, had tiled the said suit for declaration that the sale-deed executed by appellant No. 1 Dama, original defendant No. 1, in favour of appellant No. 2 Shantabai, original defendant No. 2, in respect of the suit field and house was null and void and for recovery of possession thereof. Ramabai died during the pendency of the suit and the suit was prosecuted further by her son, respondent-original defendant No. 4 Bija.

( 3 ) THE relationship of the parties could be stated as under : ramabai, original plaintiff, was the wife of Dharma. Dharma had two sons - Bija, respondent/plaintiff, who prosecuted the suit, and Kisan, defendant/appellant No. 3. Defendant/appellant No. 2 Shantabai is the wife of Kisan. She had purchased the property from appellant/defendant No. 1 Dama Sakharam gongale, who claimed to be the husband of manjulabai, daughter of Ramabai and Dharma.

( 4 ) IT is not disputed that Manjulabai lived with her parents even after her first marriage with one Dahu Dahiwale, who came to reside at the house of parents-in-law. Dharma was fond of her and she had looked after Dharma and her mother. However, she died before her father Dharma died. After the death of Manjulabai, defendant No. 1 Dama executed the sale-deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2 shantabai.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff challenged the sale-deed in favour of Shantabai by filing the suit on the ground that defendant No. 1 was never married to Manjulabai and was not manjulabais widower. He had no title in the property and, therefore, could not convey any title to defendant No. 2 Shantabai. The plaintiff, therefore, sought declaration that the sale-deed was null and void and recovery of possession of the suit property.

( 6 ) THE defendants resisted the suit contending that defendant No. 1 Dama was the husband of Manjulabai. He became the owner of the property after Manjulabais death and, therefore had right to sell the property. Hence, sale in favour of defendant No. 2 Shantabai was valid.

( 7 ) UPON considering the evidence tendered before him, the learned Trial Judge held the sale to be void, but held plaintiff entitled to only half share in the suit property, the other half share having gone to manjulabais other brother Kisan, defendant no. 3. He, therefore, decreed the suit partly. Appeal by the defendants to District Court came to be dismissed. Hence, the defendants have preferred this second appeal which was admitted for considering the following three substantial questions of law :"1. What is the evidenciary value of the death certificate vis-a-vis names entered in such certificate? 2. In case of positive documentary evidence vis-a-vis vague oral evidence which evidence would prevail to prove a question of fact? 3. What is the evidenciary value of documents, which are termed as public documents ?"

( 8 ) I have heard Smt. K. V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel tor the appellants. None appeared for the respondent, though duly served.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the gift of the field by registered gift-deed dated 20-1-1964 and sale of house by registered sale-deed dated 16-4-1969 could not be assailed. Yet, the learned Trial Judge held that in spite of the gift-deed, donor Dharma had retained possession of the property, impliedly negativing passage of title to deceased Manjulabai. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this was not proper. Since it could not be said that the donor had reserved any right in the property, which he had gifted to Manjulabai, merely because the donor happened to reside w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document