1955 Supreme(Pat) 148

PATNA HIGH COURT
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
Channoo Mahto
Versus
Jang Bahadur Singh
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 192 of 1954 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 13, 1955

1. The Court held that the evidence of Md. Jan, D.W. 7, who is recorded as having stated in his exaniination-ih-chief, that Bucha died before survey, has been wrongly recorded. 2. The Court held that exhibits 1 and 1-d should have been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge in deciding the question, whether Maulat had a share in the properties which stood recorded in the name of Daulat only.

Headnote:

EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 145, 21, 13, 167 - ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS - ADMISSIONS - RELEVANCY - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - NEW TRIAL OR REVERSAL OF DECISION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of 6k. 15dh. out of plot 228 of khata 24 in village Phulwaria. The plaintiffs case was that there was one Bucha, who died before the survey, which took place in 1897, leaving behind a major son Daulat, and a minor son Maulat. Bucha died leaving some properties also including plot 228. At the time of survey Maulat was a minor, and, therefore, all the properties left by Bucha were recorded in the name of Daulat only, as he was the major son of Bucha. The two brothers, however, continued to be in joint possession of the properties left by Bucha. Even after the death of Daulat, his son, Mohammad Jan, defendant No. 5, and Maulat continued to be in joint possession of all the properties. Thereafter there was a partition between Mohammad Jan and Maulat, by virtue of which the disputed land was allotted, to the share of Maulat, and the remaining portion of the plot fell to the share of Mohammad Jan. Maulat continued to be in exclusive possession of, the disputed land for a number of years, and thereafter he sold the same to the plaintiffs on 13-6-1915 under Exhibits 1-A and 1-B, The plaintiffs continued in possession of the disputed land, but thereafter, due to interference by the defendant 1st party they discontinued their possession in December, 1950, On these allegations the plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the disputed land.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that all the properties, which were recorded in the name of Daulat, belonged to his father Bucha; Bucha died before the survey; Daulat and Maulat continued to be in joint possession of all the lands recorded in the name of Daulat; there was a private partition between Maulat and Md. Jan, by virtue of which the land claimed by the plaintiffs was allotted to the share of Mauiat, Maulat was never in possession as a bharnadar; Maulat had a right to sell the lands in suit to the plaintiffs; and that the case of possession and dispossession set up by the plaintiffs was true.

Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of Md. Jan, D.W. 7, who is recorded as having stated in his exaniination-ih-chief, that Bucha died before survey, has been wrongly recorded? 2. Whether exhibits 1 and 1-d should have been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge in deciding the question, whether Maulat had a share in the properties which stood recorded in the name of Daulat only?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence of Md. Jan, D.W. 7, who is recorded as having stated in his exaniination-ih-chief, that Bucha died before survey, has been wrongly recorded. The Court relied on Section 80 of the Evidence Act, which provides that whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence was duly taken. 2. The Court held that exhibits 1 and 1-d should have been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge in deciding the question, whether Maulat had a share in the properties which stood recorded in the name of Daulat only. The Court relied on Section 21 of the Evidence Act, which provides that admissions are relevant and provable, but if they are self-serving, then generally they are not receivable in evidence. If the admission is a self-harming one, then, with few exceptions, it is usually considered as a proof of a very satisfactory kind. Admissions are valuable pieces of evidence, as the rule is that when a, party admits to be true, he is presumed to be true unless the contrary is established. Therefore, in my opinion, the statements of Mr. Jan in exhibits 1 and 1-d are his admissions within the meaning of Sec.21 of the Evidence Act.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed, Judgment and decree of the Court of appeal below are set aside, and the appeal is remanded to the learned District Judge to re-hear the appeal and give a fresh decision after consideration of exhibits 1 and 1-d, and the other evidence on the record, and the Judgment of the first Court, in the light of the observations made above.