Back
1991 Supreme(All) 38
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.L. YADAV, J.
Devi Singh - Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue U. P. At Allahabad - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 8377 of 1990
Decided on : Jan 10, 1991
K.B.L. Gaur, S.N. Srivastava
Admissions made by a party are substantive evidence and are binding on the party making them, even if not put in cross-examination.
Headnote:
EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 17, 21 - ADMISSION - BINDING ON PARTY MAKING THEM - STATEMENT IN MUTATION PROCEEDINGS - ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE - IGNORING MATERIAL EVIDENCE - FINDINGS NOT BINDING.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner in a suit under Section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act, where the plaintiffs claimed declaration as bhumidars alleging that the deceased's daughters were married at the time of his death and hence could not inherit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the statement of a party in mutation proceedings, even though not put in cross-examination, is an admission and is binding on the party making it. The court also held that ignoring material evidence, including admissions, renders the findings of the first appellate court or the last court of fact not binding.
Issues: Whether the findings recorded by the first appellate court in disregard of material evidence on record including admission of a party would be binding or not?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Sections 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act to hold that admissions are binding on the party making them, even if not put in cross-examination. The court also referred to precedents such as Bharat Singh v. Smt. Bhagirathi and Vishwanath Prasad v. Dwarika Pd. to distinguish between admissions and prior statements used to discredit witnesses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and remanded the case back to the Additional Commissioner for a fresh decision considering the ignored evidence.
B.L. Yadav
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20 3-90 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioners, and the order dated 8-7-87 passed by the Additional Commissioner in a suit under Section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act filed by Mohan Lal, defendant no. 4 and Jagannath, defendant no 5 against Ram Chandra and others for declaration as bhumidars alleging that Deep Chand, father of Sureshi and Smt. Savitri died in 1975 and Sureshi and Smt. Savitri both were married at the time of his 29-Rep-1991 death, hence they could not inherit, rather the plaintiffs being sons of Tugal, real brother of Deep Chand and sons of Ram Swaroop, the other brother of Deep Chand and Ram Chand the fifth brother inherited the plots of bhumidhar.
2. The suit was contested by Smt. Savitri, respondent no. 14, daughter of Deep Chand that she was unmarried and minor at the time when Deep Chand died. Consequently being unmarried daughter she was inherited the plot from Deep Chand, her father and thereafter executed the sale deed. She executed the sale deed in favour of Ram Swaroop Singh defendant no. 6 and the vendees also executed another sale deed in favour of other defendants, and in any case as Smt Savitri being minor and unmarried was recorded over the plots, hence the vendees were entitled to the provisions of Sections 41 and 43 of the Transter of Property Act The trial court by order dated 8-4-87 dismissed the suit (Annexure-2) The plaintiffs preferred an apnea! before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed by judgment dated 8 7- 88. Petitioners second appeal was dismissed by the order dated 20-3 90.
Sri K B. L. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the statement of Jagannath. respondent no 5, the son of Tugal. real brother of Mohan Lal, the plaintiff, made a statement in mutation proceedings to the effect that Smt. Savitri was minor and unmarried at the time when Deep Chand died in 1975. A true copy of the statement has been filed as Annexure 2 to the petition. But that statement of Jagannath, real brother of the plaintiff was not considered which was an important piece of evidence The other important documentary evidence Including the rent receipts of 1387 F, irregation slips, order dated 3-10-77 in proceedings under section 145 and the order dated 5-7-77 passed by the Civil Judge, Roorkee etc. were not considered. The findings have been recorded by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in complete disregard of the important documentary and oral evidence on record and consequently those findings are not binding. Reliance was placed of Vishwanath Prasad v. Dwarika Prasad, AIR 1974 SC 117, Bharat Singh v. Mst. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405, and Smt Sonavati v. Sri Ram, AIR 1968 SC 466.
3. Sri S N. SRIvastava, on the other hand, urged that all the material evidence on record has been considered and as the statement was made by Jagannath in mutation proceedings, hence that has no probative value and the findings recorded by respondent nos 1 and 2 are findings of facts.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the point that falls for determination Is whether the findings recorded by the first appellate court in disregard of material evidence on record including admission of a party would be binding or not ? Suffice it to say that the statement contained in Annexure-2, the statement of Jagannath, even though was made in mutation proceedings, but nevertheless it happens to be an admission of a party to the case and it need not have been put in cross-examination to Jagannath. as he was not examined in the suit giving rise to the present petition. The admission inview of the provisions of Sections 17 and 2' of the Evidence Act are binding on the party making them Even though the same is not the conclusive proof of the matter admitted and even if the person making the statement or admission was not examined, that is immaterial.
