Wanchoo, C.J. — This is a review application by Daudas against the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which was delivered on the 31st of July 1950 and has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. A suit was brought by Punamchand against Motilal, his mother Mst. Dhapo, Sunder Lal, Daudas, Gulabdas and Hemraj defendants for possession of a certain house. Punamchand claimed to be the owner of the house by virtue of it being ancestral property which had come to him. The suit was resisted by Daudas and his case was that the house had been sold in his decree against Sangidas. He put the decree in execution against Gulabdas son of Sangidas and attached the house and it was sold by auction and purchased by Hemraj defendant. Sangidas in his turn had purchased this house by a private sale from Motilal and Mst. Dhapo, his mother. The further case of Daudas was that there had been a separation in the family of Punamchand and Motilal long before the sale to Sangidas and this house had come to the share of Motilals grandfather. The trial court dismissed the suit and there was a first appeal to this Court. That appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. Therefore, the present application for review was made and the same learned Judges, who decided the appeal, issued notice The case has now come before us to decide whether review should be granted or not as the two learned Judges who decided the appeal are no longer on the Bench of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that there are errors apparent on the record and this Court should grant the review. He has particularly pointed out two matters where, according to him, the learned Judges while deciding the appeal had made errors apparent on the record. He contends that it is an undisputed fact in this case that the joint family of Punamchand, Motilal and others had separated as far back at least as 1900 and the learned Judges have not considered this undisputed fact at all anywhere in the judgment. Secondly, he urges that the trial court had raised the presumption of sec. 90 of the Indian Evidence Act in favour of two documents Ex. D-1 and D-2. The learned Judges who heard the appeal did not raise that presumption for certain reasons and even then did not give him an opportunity to prove the documents. He, therefore, urges that in view of at least these two errors apparent on the record, the review should be granted.

4. So far as the first point is concerned learned counsel for the applicant referred to the statement of Punamchand plaintiff himself to the effect that there had been, complete separation in the family and that this separation took place in Smt. 1957, i.e., 1900 A. D. Learned counsel for the opposite party urges that in view of the decision of this Court in Hariram vs. Mst. Nathi (1951 R.L.W.318) this only amounts to overlooking certain evidence and, therefore, is not a ground for review. Both of us were a party to the case of Hariram and we held there, that the mere fact that a Judge has not in terms referred to certain evidence in favour of one party or the other was not a sufficient reason for granting a review. We, however, further pointed out that the matter would be different if certain undisputed facts, which were on the record, had not been taken into consideration. The present case is, in our opinion, of the second kind, namely, certain undisputed facts have not been taken into consideration in the judgment under review. The case of the defendants was that there had been a separation in the family in Smt. 1924. The statement of the plaintiff in the witness-box was to the effect that there had been a separation in the family and that this separation took place in Smt. 1957. It was, thus, undisputed between the parties that the family was separate at least since 1900 and certainly in the relevant years, namely. 1914 and 1915 when the alleged sale to Sangidas was made. Though, therefore, it may in a sense be argued that the learned Judges, who del

Click Here to Read the rest of this document