Back
1977 Supreme(MP) 870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.K. TANKHA, J.
Ramout - Appellant
Vs.
Ojhi - Respondents
S.A. No. 343 of 1971 (J)
Decided On : 27-09-1977
For the Appellants : Y.S. Dharmadhikari
For the Respondents: M.A. Khan
Headnote:(1) Hindu Law – inheritance - customs for - pleading and proof - necessity of.
(2) Practice (Civil) – plaintiff failed to prove his case - evidence of other side need not be referred.
1. The controversy in the present appeal relates to the property left by Bundal. The contesting parties are his son from first wife who is plaintiff, the present appellant and his step mother defendant No. 1 who is respondent No. 1 here. The rest of she defendants (respondents) are proforma parties as her supporters. The question that is for consideration in the present appeal is a short one; whether in the present case the property left over by Bundal is divisible half and half between the son and step-mother, or the son alone is entitled to succeed.
Held : It is not disputed before me that the parties are gonds belonging to scheduled tribes living in Seoni, District. The Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 17-6-1967 partitioned the property between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff as per custom prevalent in their community the widow has only right of maintenance while the son succeeds to the estate of the deceased father. No doubt in the present case as far the defendants 1 and 2 were concerned who contested the claim pleaded that the family had adopted by custom Hindu Law of inheritance as modified from time to time by legislation since the time immemorial. It was contended that the widow would be entitled to share in equal with the son in the estate of the deceased husband. The lower appellate Court in its detailed judgment after due appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the customary law pleaded by him. The lower appellate Court has also held that the plaintiff's evidence adduced by him in support of his plea was unreliable. It could not be shown that the said appreciation of the evidence by the lower appellate Court was perverse or not warranted from the evidence on record. Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to prove his case then is it not necessary to refer to the evidence of the other side. Appeal dismissed.
