Bapna, J.—This is an appeal under sec. 384 of the Indian Succession Act (No. 39 of 1925).

2. The respondent Jootha applied for grant of succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Punamchand who died on Second Srawan Sudi 15, Smt. 2004 (31st of August 1947). The respondent claimed to be the nearest heir of the deceased and alleged that one Chunilal, who had made a separate application for grant of such certificate was not the nearest heir. The appellant Shiv Lal objected to the grant of certificate to Jootha alleging that the nearest heir of the deceased Punamchand was Chunilal, who later on died bequeathing all the property to the objector. It was mentioned that Chunilal had filed a petition for grant of succession certificate in respect of the estate of Punamchand, but that petition became infructuous owing to Chunilas death. The relevant portion of the pedigree relied upon by the respondent is as under;—

Haring

Inda Chena Sarup

Kuma Malla Tulcha

Sobha Maga Jootha (Applicant)

Chunilal (through whomthe objector claimed) Punamchand(deceased)

3. The appellant did not admit that Sarup was the son of Haring, but it was alleged on his behalf that Sarup was the son of Ranchor, a brother of Haring. The learned District Judge held that Sarup was the son of Haring and consequently Jootha was nearer in degree to the deceased Punamchand than Chunilal. He also observed that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate being of a summary nature, a legatee from an alleged heir had no locus standi to contest the proceedings. He further observed that the objector was not entitled to a certificate since he claimed under a will for which he could obtain Letters of Administration or Probate. The learned District Judge accordingly directed that a succession certificate be issued to Jootha respondent in respect of the assets of the deceased Punamchand mentioned in the schedule accompanying the petition.

4. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the lower court has grossly erred in relying on the evidence of the witnesses for the respondent, and that the observations of the learned Judge, that the witnesses were residents of the village of the deceased and withstood the test of cross-examination, are not correct.

5. We have gone through the evidence and are of opinion that the evidence led by the respondent is wholly unreliable and entirely insufficient for a finding that Sarup, the grand-father of the respondent, was the son of Haring. The entire evidence led by the respondent consists of four witnesses, viz., Jhutmal s/o Peera, Chunilal, Ranmal and the respondent Jootha himself- The first three witnesses did not belong to the family to which the deceased Punam Chand belonged, and they did not state their source of knowledge as regards the pedigree of the family of the deceased. Their parrot-like statements to prove the pedigree relied upon by the respondent, are inadmissible in evidence. Jhutmal s/o Peera admitted that he did not belong to the family of Punamchand and was unable to state the pedigree of his own maternal uncle. Chunilal, the second witness, also did not state how he was connected with Punamchand and what was the source of his knowledge. Ranmal also admitted that he did not belong to the family of the deceased and was not related to him in any way.

6. As pointed out by their Lord-ships of the Privy Council in Laxmi Reddi vs. Venkata Reddi (A.I.R. 1937 Privy Council 201), the Indian Evidence Act does not contain any express provision making evidence of general reputation admissible as proof of relationship. Their Lordships further pointed out the necessity of putting forward evidence of the kind described in sec. 32, clauses (5), (6) and (7), and sec. 50, Evidence Act, to prove the existence of relationship between persons deceased whenever the question is in issue. In the case before their Lordships a number of witnesses were allowed simply to enunciate from the witness box the proposition whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document