Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 1246
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Panmati Devi
Versus
Sudarshan Singh
FIRST APPEAL No. 342 of 1978
Decided On : MAY 12, 2010
The admissibility and reliability of evidence under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act were central to determining parentage and share in a property dispute.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, Section 50, Section 60 - The court discussed the relevance and admissibility of evidence under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act to determine the parentage of the defendant No.8, Dhaneshwari. The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff, including testimony from co-villagers and family members, was admissible and reliable under Section 50, and concluded that Dhaneshwari is the daughter of Mathura Gor.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming relief for redemption of his share in certain lands and for partition. The defendant contested the claim, denying the plaintiff's share and the parentage of defendant No.8, Dhaneshwari.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Dhaneshwari is the daughter of Mathura Gor, which determined the share of the parties. The court also modified the judgment to award mesne profit from the date of deposit of money, not from the date of institution of the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether Dhaneshwari is the daughter of Mathura Gor? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: The admissibility and relevance of evidence under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act were crucial in determining the parentage of Dhaneshwari, which ultimately determined the share of the parties. The court also clarified the award of mesne profit based on established legal principles.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree were modified to award mesne profit from the date of deposit of money.
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
1. This First Appeal was filed by Jagdish Singh , the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.1978 passed by Sri Mudrika Prasad, VIth Additional Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No.52 of 1973/04 of 1978. The sole appellant died during pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives have been substituted.
2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 Sudarshan Siungh filed the aforesaid Title Suit claiming relief for redemption of his share of Rs 1348/- and 2 Anna in three-Jarpeshagi deeds executed by the defendant No.7 and others in favour of the defendant No.1 (appellant) with respect to 10 Kathas and 15 Dhurs in R. S. plot No.2990 of village, Balahu. The plaintiff-respondents also prayed for partition of his 14/27 share in the disputed land described in detail at the foot of the plaint.
3. The plaintiff-respondent claim the reliefs on the facts inter alia that Bisheshwar Sah had three sons, namely, Mathura Gor, Gokula Gor and Shiv Gor. Mathura Gor died in the year, 1962 leaving behind the defendant No.8 Mossomat Dhaneshwari as his only daughter. She being the daughter came in joint possession regarding 1/3rd share of her father, Mathura Gor alongwith defendant No.2 to 7. The sons and grandsons of Gokula Gor are defendant Nos.2 to 6. The son of Shiv Gor is defendant No.7.
4. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the further case is that Mathura Gor and Ramayan Gor (defendant No 3) Tufani Gor (defendant No.7) executed two Peshagi deeds on 02.07.1962 for Rs 2600/- in favour of defendant No.1 and gave possession of the Jar Peshagi lands. The two Jar Peshagi deeds have been marked as Ext-C/2 and C/3. The further case is that the defendant No.3 and the daughter, Dhaneshwari , defendant No.8 and Sukhlal Gor, defendant No.5, son of Gokhula Gor sold their entire share in the disputed land to the plaintiff on 25.02.1970, 21.08.1971 and 14.7.1972 through registered sale deeds. It is also the case is that defendant No.4, Sattam Gor , son of Sukhnandan Gor, defendant No.6 ramdeo Gor S/o Gokhula Gor and defendant No.7 Tufani S/o Shiv Gor sold their share to the defendant No.1 after the sale in favour of the plaintiff. The share of the plaintiff is 14/27, the share of defendant No.1 is 13/27 and the share of defendant No.1/27. They are coming in joint passion.
5. The further case of the plaintiff is that he filed a petition in the court below during pendency of the suit for amendment of the share which was allowed on 28.6.1977. According to the plaintiff, he tendered his Jarpeshagi money with a request to redeem his share but the defendant did not agree. Hence, the suit.
6. On being noticed, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed a contesting written statement raising various legal pleas. The main defence is that Mossomat Dhaneshwari , respondent No.8 is not the daughter of Mathura Gor and also denied that she came in joint possession of 1/3rd share alongwith defendant No.2 to 7. According to him, Mathura Gor died issueless and the defendant No.2 to 7 came in possession of the land. The defendant admitted the execution of Jarpeshagi deed and stated that he is Jarpeshagidar of entire R. S. plot No.2990.
7. The further case of the defendant is that the defendant No.2 to 7 after death of Mathura partitioned the properties. In that partition, plot no.2990 and 1 Katha 15.5 Dhurs in R. S. plot No.2999 fell to the share of the defendant nos.4, 6 and 7 who later on, sold those lands to the defendant No.1 through 5 registered sale deeds. The said 5 registered sale deeds have been marked Ext-A to A/4. The amount of 2600/- of Jarpeshagi deeds was set off and they received the consideration money of Rs 7400/-. Since then the defendant/appellant is continuing in possession and paying rent to the state of Bihar. He also denied the plaintiff share to the extent of 14/27.
8. On these pleadings, the learned court below framed as many as 9 issues and after trial came to the conclusion that defendant No.8, Dhan
