BHARAT SINGH AND ANR. versus BHAGIRATHI

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 26-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHA"RAT SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
BHAGIRATffi 
• 
August 26, 1965 
(A. K. SARKAR, R.AGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. R.AMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872)-Admissions--Witness not confronted 
-Whether admissible-Hindu Law-Widow's name mutated-If 
suffi-
cient to prove severance of joint family. 
The appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the entry in the name 
A 
B 
of the respondent in the Jamabandi papers of certain villages was in-
correct and alleged that they along with their brother,. the husband of the 
C 
respondent, constituted a joint Hindu family, that their brother died as 
a member of the joint Hindu family and thereafter his widow-the res-
pondent-lived with the appellants who continued to 
be 
owners 
and 
possessors of the property in suit, the widow being entitled to mainten-
ance only, and that by mistake the respodent's name was entered in vil-
lage records in place qf the deceased husband. The respondent contested 
the suit alleging, inter alia, that her husband did not constitute a joint 
D 
Hindu family with the appellants at the time of his death and also that 
the suit was barred by time as she had become owner and possessor of 
the land in suit in 1925 on the death of her husband when the entries in 
her favour \Vere made, and the suit was brought in 1951. 
The respOn-
dent had admitted in certain documents about the existence of the joint 
Hindu family or a joint Hindu family firm. 
The trial Court decreed the 
suit, which oo appeal, the High Court set aside. 
The High Court did 
not use the admissions of respondent as she, when in the witness box, 
E 
was not confronted with those admissions; and as those documents, if 
read as a whole did not contain any admissions on behalf of the respondent 
r 
that there was any joint family still in existence. In appeal by certificate 
to this Court. 
HELD : ( i) There is a strong presumption in favour of Hindu brothers 
constituting a joint family. 
It is for the person a1Jegi.ng severance of 
joint Hindu family to establish it. 
The mere fact of the mutation entry 
being made in favour of the respondent on the death of her husband was 
no clear indication that there was no joint Hindu family of the appellants 
and the respondent's husband .at the time of the latter's death. 
[610 E. F-G] 
(ii) Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against the 
persons making them. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, 
in vie\v of ss. 17 and 21 of the Indian E\idence Act, though they are not 
cot'lclusive proof of the matter admitted. The admissions duly proved are 
admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appear-
ed in witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as \Vitness 
was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement con~ 
trary to those admissions. 
The purpose of contradicting the witness 
under s. 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose 
of proving the admission. 
Admission is substantive evidence of the fact 
admitted while a previous statement used to •contradict a witness does not 
become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing 
doubt on the veracity of the witness. ·What weight is to be attached to 
an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admis-
sible evidence. 
1 
I 
F· 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
BHARAT SINGH V. BHAGIRATHI (Daya/, J.) 
607 
Therefore, the admissions of the respondent which had been duly 
prnved could be used against her. 
They were proved long before she 
entered the witness box and it \vas for her to offer any explanation for 
making admissions. 
lier simple statement that her husband had separated 
from his brothers even before her marriage was, by itself, neither an 
adequate explanation of those admission nor a clearcut denial of the facts 
admitted. [615 F-616 CJ 
(iii) The suit was clearly not barred by limitation. 
Admittedly the 
dispute between the parties arose sometime in 1944. 
Prior to that there 
could be no reason for the respondent acting adversely to the interesL'\ 
of the appellants. It was really in about 1950 that she asserted her title 
by leasing certain properties and by transferring others, and in 1951 the 
appellants instituted the suit. [617 C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 423 of 
1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 9, 
1959 of the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 151 
of 1954. 
D 
Bishan Narain, M. V. Goswami an

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