1943 Supreme(SC) 4
Gopal Das and another – Appellant
Versus
Sri Thakurji and others – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
Dold, Douglas Grant , T.L. Wilson and Co., J.M. Parikh, Sir Thomas Strongman, S.P. Khambatta
Judgement Key Points
- Appeal by plaintiffs, reversioners of Parshotam Das (adopted son of Manki Bahu, widow of Harish Chandra, died 1883), against decree dismissing suit for property inherited from Harish Chandra. (!) (!)
- Property in dispute: proprietary interest in village Sheodasa (lists 1-2), bari haveli and adjacent orchard in Benares (list 3). (!)
- Defendants' defenses: property not left by Parshotam Das; 1896 compromise by Bindeshri relinquishing claims to disputed properties. (!)
- Manki claimed retention of rights post-adoption via petitions (1860, 1871); 1871 will (signed by 16-year-old Parshotam) treated estate as her own, dedicated bari haveli and orchard to idol Thakurji, Sheodasa profits for worship; gave Parshotam Rs.12,000 notes and chhoti haveli only, barring further claims. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- 1878 inscription over bari haveli gate declared dedication to Thakurji; Sheodasa revenue records (1883) named idol as proprietor with Manki as manager. (!)
- 1881 registered receipt (Ex. KK) by Parshotam (age ~25): acknowledged 1871 will made with his consent, accepted chhoti haveli and Rs.12,000 notes as his share, no further claims to estate; confirmed separate possession and receipt of interest; took Rs.1,000 cash for daughter's marriage. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Parshotam and Bindeshri never collected Sheodasa rents; alleged 1883 will left all to Bindeshri as absolute owner (trial court accepted, High Court rejected). (!)
- 1893 will by Manki referenced 1871 will, claimed ownership of Sheodasa and notes; gave Bindeshri Rs.12,000 notes absolutely, limited others; Sheodasa income for idol worship. (!)
- Post-Manki death (1893), 1895 suit by her daughter Punno vs. Bindeshri ended in 1896 compromise relinquishing claims to disputed properties for chhoti haveli and Rs.20,000 notes. (!)
- 1906 suit by Sohan Bibi (plaintiffs' mother) referenced 1881 receipt ratifying 1871 will arrangements. (!) (!)
- Trial court admitted Ex. KK "against plaintiffs"; High Court rejected for lack of proof of execution and secondary evidence foundation. (!)
- Privy Council: receipt admitted as proved via registrar's endorsements under Registration Act; no timely objection to mode of proof; Parshotam's statements admissible against reversioners; presumption of regularity; no evidence of impostor. (!)
- Receipt not public document under Evidence Act; secondary evidence issue waived by lack of trial objection. (!)
- Original receipt likely with plaintiffs' family; notice to produce unnecessary formality. (!)
- Receipt proved: Parshotam accepted limited property, relinquished claims; with other evidence (wills, inscription, records), showed Manki's adverse possession from 1881 for over 12 years against Parshotam and his estate. (!)
- Bindeshri's 1896 compromise abandoned no valid claim; Parshotam's title (if any) extinguished by limitation before Manki's death; applies to reversioners. (!)
- Appeal dismissed; plaintiffs pay costs of respondents 1-7. (!) (!)
Sir George Rankin.-
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad dated 3rd October 1935, affirming a decree of 7th November 1930, by which the Subordinate Judge at Benares dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs claim as reversioners of one Parshotam Das who died in 1883, a Hindu governed by the Benares school of law.
Harish Chandra, whose name stands at the head of the pedigree table, died in 1856 leaving a widow, whose name was Manki, three daughters (one born posthumously), but no son. In 1860 the widow adopted Parshotam Das, then about five years old. When he died, in 1883 he left a widow Bindeshri and two daughters Mohan and Sohan. Manki Bahu his adoptive mother survived him and died in 1893. His daughter Sohan was married to Mukandi Lal and the plaintiffs Gopal Das and Baldeo Das are her sons. Thus, when Parshotam Das died Bindeshri inherited his property. When she died in 1916 her daughters succeeded, but in 1926 they executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of the plaintiffs who thus make title as reversioners of Parshotam Das to any estate which he may have possessed at his death.
The defendants to the suit, in addition to Mohan Bibi and Soha
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
