BANT SINGH & ANR. versus NIRANJAN SINGH(D) BY LRS,& ANR.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 2 S.C.R. 1077 
~ 
~ 
BANT SINGH & ANR. 
A 
v. 
NIRANJAN SINGH(D) BY LRS,& ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7162 of 2005) 
-
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
B 
[S.8. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH 8EDI, JJ.] 
--"' 
l' 
Hindu Law -Properly dispute - Transfer of property to 
heirs of daughter objected on the ground that the property was 
coparcenany -Relationship of parties disputed -Trial Court c 
decreeing the suit - First appellate court setting aside the 
decree -However, both the courts holding that the relationship 
_,-
between the parties established - High Court appreciating the 
' 
evidence of defence and holding that the same was not reliable, 
not being in conformity with s. 50 of Evidence Act- On appeal, 
D 
held: Decree set aside -Transfer to the heirs of daughter is 
-r 
correct as defence evidence establishing .relationship of 
parties - Defence evidence is admissible being in conformity 
with s. 50 of Evidence Act - Question of nature of property 
cannot be gone into by Supreme Court , as no substantial 
E 
question of law was formulated in that behalf in second appeal 
- Evidence Act, 1872 -s. 50. 
Deeds and Documents - Entry in revenue records -
Evidentiary value -Held: Such entry is not decisive as to status 
of the party, but can be used for raising a presumption in respect 
,. 
of possession - Evidence. 
F 
'C' left behind him two sons 'M' and' '8' and one 
daughter 'N'. Respondent (son of 'M') inherited the 
property of his father after his death. Since'8' died without 
leaving behind any first class legal heir, his property G 
devolved upon the respondent and appellants (children 
of his sister 'N'). Mutation was done in favour of the 
respondent and the appellants. Respondent filed a ·suit 
challenging mutation p'roceedings. He claimed ·that the 
I 
1077 
H 
---( 
\ 
~-
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A property being a joint coparcenary property, 'N' (daughter 
of 'C') did not derive any interest therein; and that 'N' was 
~ . 
not the daughter of 'C'. Defendant-appellants examine~ 
four witnesses. Trial Court decreed the suit. However, jt 
held that 'N' was daughter of 'C'. First appellate Court held 
B that the property was not coparcenary and upheld the 
finding regarding relationship of 'N' with 'C'. In second 
appeal, High Court formulated substantial questions of 
"" 
law regarding application of s.50 of Evidence Act. No 
f-
substantial question was formulated as to whether the 
c property was coparcenary. High Court appreciated the 
evidence of DWs 1 and 2 and set aside the order of first 
appellate court on the ground that the evidence of DWs 1 
and 2 were not in conformity with s.50 of Evidence Act. 
.. 
Hence the present appeal. 
, 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It does ·not appear from the judgments of 
""' 
the trial court as also the first appellate court that any 
evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent to 
establish as to_ whose daughter 'N' was. Plaintiffs-
~
E Respondents, furthermore failed to establish as to how 
the order of the revenue authorities directing mutation of 
the name of the appellants herein was illegal.[Para 13J 
[1083-8, . CJ 
F 
Dofgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra AIR 1959 
SC 914- relied on 
~~-
1.2 The evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 are admissible 
in evidence being in conformity with the provisions of 
Section 50 of the Evidence Act. High Court for the reasons 
G best known to it, did not advert to the depositions of the 
witnesses examined .on behalf of the appellants at all. The 
High Court could have interfered with the finding of fact 
1" 
in a second appeal provided it applied the right tests, but 
it failed to do so. [Para 21J [1087-B, CJ 
H 
2. An entry made in the revenue records may not be 
BANT SINGH & ANR. v. NIRANJAN SINGH(D) BY 
1079 
LRS.& ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
. y 
decisive as regards the status of the parties but a A 
presumption in regard to possession can be raised on 
the basis thereof. [Para 14] [1083-D] 
3.1 This Court cannot enter into the question as to 
whether the suit property was an ancestral property or 
B 
not. No substantial question of law in that behalf was 
1' 
formulated. Out of the three substantial questions of law 
" 
the first two questions related only to application of 
Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. The third question 
formulated was not a substantial question of law at all. 
[Para 22] [1087-D, E] 
c 
~ 
3.2 As the respondent failed to persuade the High 
Court to formulate any substantial ques

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.