LexBASANT SINGH versus JANKI SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B BASANT SINGH v. JANKI SINGH AND ORS. August 2, 1966 [K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), s. 17-Admission made in pleading--Relevancy in another suit. The plaintiff tendered in evidence a plaint in an earlier suit and relied on an admission made by the defendants with regard to a fact in issue in C the later suit. The High Court ruled that the plaint was not admissible in evidence on two grounds, viz., (i) the plaintiff could not rely on a state- ment in the plaint as an admission, as she was not prepared to accept the correctne!"s of the other staten1ents in the plaint and (ii) an admission in a pleading could be used only for the purposes of the suit in which tho pleading was filed. On appeal _to this Court. D E F • G '( H HELD: (ll All the statements in the plaint are admissible . in evi- dence. The plaintiff can rely upon a statement in the plaint with regard to a matter in issue as an admission, though she is not prepared to accept the correctness of the other statements in the plaint. Nor is the Court bound to accept all the statements as correct. The court may accept some of the state1nents as correct and reject the rest. [3 F] (2\ Section 17 of 1be Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes no distinction between an admission made by a 11arty in a pleading and other admissions. An admission made by .a party m a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admission C'annot be regarded as conclusive, and -it is open to the party to show that it is not true. [ 4 DJ D. S. Mohite, v. S. I. Moh;te, A.I.R. 1960 Born. 153, Marianski v. Cairns, 1 Macq. 212 (H.L.) and Ramabai Shriniwas v. Bombay Govern- mmt, A.I.R. 1941 Bom. 144, referred to. · CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 19 & 20 of 1963. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated July 31, 1959 of the Patna High Court in Appeals from Original Decree Nos. 30 and 40 of 1953 respectively. S. T. Desai and R. C. Prasad for appellant. Sarjoo Prasad and· D. Goburdhan, for the respondents Nos. I to 4 [In C. A. No. 19 of.1963]. · Sarjoo Prasad and K.·K. Sinha, for respondents Nos. 5-7 and 9 [In C. A. No. 19 of 1963] and 1-3 and 5 [In C. A. No. 20 of 1963]. 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] I S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat,J. One Ramyad Singh wa~a member of a joint family and has eight annas interest in the joint family properties. He was a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. He died issuelcss, leaving his widow, Mst. Bhagwano Kunwar. The date of his death is in dispute. After his death, Bhagwano Kunwar filed the present suit for partition of the joint family properties claim- ing eight annas share therein. She contended that Ramyad Singh died in 1939 after the passing of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and she was entitled to maintain the suit for partition. The defendants contended that Ramyad Singh died in 1936 before the passing of the Act and she was entitled to mainte- nance only. The trial Court accepted the plaintiff's contention and decreed the suit. The defendants filed two separate appeals to the High Court. On December 15, 1958, Bhagwano Kunwar died. The High Court passed orders substituting one Ram Gulam Singh in her place. Later, the High Court recalled these orders, as it was conceded that Ram Gulam Singh was not her legal representative. By a deed dated March 14, 1958, Bhagwano Kunwar had sold lands measuring I bigha 5 kathas to the appellant. The High Court allowed the appellant's application for substitution under 0 · 22 r. IO of the Code of Civil Procedure and proceeded to hear the appeals. The High Court accepted the defendants' contention, reversed the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, and dismissed the suit. The appellant has now filed these appeals under certi- ficates granted by the High Court. The main point in controversy is, did Ramyad Singh· die in 1936 or did he die in 1939? If he died in 1936, Bhagwano Kunwar was not entitled to maintain the suit for partition and the suit was liable to be dismissed. But if he died in 1939, she was entitled to eight annas share in the joint estate and was entitled to maintain the suit for partition under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 read with the Bihar Hind11 Women's Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural Land) Act,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.