MADHUSUDAN DAS versus SMT. NARAYANI BAI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 25-11-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

SSI
.
MAOHUSUOAN, OAS
v.
SMT. NARAYANI BAI AND OTH.ERS
November 25, 1982
(V.:iJ. TULZAPURKAR AND R,S, PATHAK, JJ.]
Evidence-Weight to be given to finding of facts by trial court-Principle
governing.re-a;Jpraisal of oral evfdence by appellate court.
Evidence-Of witnesses holding position of relationship with parties-C,o~t
should examine its.probative value with reference to entire mosaic of facts appearing
on record.
B
c
Adoption-:--Fact of adoption to be proved in the same way as any Other
fact-Proof of physical act of givYlg and taking essential.
D
Joint Hindu Family-Partit/011-Notice to co·shareTs of intent{on to
separat~ essentiaL
Jagannathdas and his wife Premwati had no children. Premwati suffered
from tuberculosis and died on September ,24, 1951:. ThC'.reafter Jagannathd8s
created a trust in respCct of-his estate which comprised of properties falling· to his
share in' a faMily partition. The. appe!latit filed a suit claiming that he bad been
. adopted by, Jagannath~as and Premwati as their son on September 24, 1951, that
the trust was void and that be was entitled. to a half share in the estate. The trial
court ~ecrecd the suit after finding that_ the appell~t had in fact been ad.opted, by
Jagannathdas and Prf:mwati and that the adoption was val!d.
On appeal by the trustees ·the High Court reversed the finding· of tho trial
court taking a different view of the .evidence on record and dismissed the suit.
Allowing tho appeal against tho order of tbo High Court,
HELD : ·in an appeal against a trial, .court decree, when the appellate
Court consider.s an issue turning on oral evidence it must bear in mind that it does
not enjoy the advantage which the trial court had in having the witnesses before
il and of observing the manner in which they gave their testimor:iy. When there is
a conflict of-Oral evidence on any matter in issue and its resolution turns upon tht!I
credibility of the witnesses, the general rule is 'that the appellate court should
permit the findings of faCt1 rende'ted by the trial court to prevail unless it clearly
appears that some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness has
escaped the notice of the trial court or there is a sufficient balance of improbabi-
lity 'to displace its opinion as to where the credibility lies. The principle is one of
practice and ~ovcms the weight to be given to· a finding of fact by the trial court.
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
E
F
Ht
852
SUPRBMB COUllt RB!>ORTli
( 1983 l 1 s.c.I<.
Th~e is, of course, Do doubt that as a matter of law if the appraisal of the
evidence by the trial court Sl!ffers from a material irregularity or is basCd on
inadmissible evidence or ·on· a misreading of the'' evidence or on conjectures and
surmises the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact.
[856·0-E; 857-B-C]
W.c. Macdonald.¥:. FredJ.atimer;A.i.R.1929• P.C. 15; Watt v. Thomas.
L.R. 1947 A.C. 484 ; Sara Veeraswami alias Sara Veerra/u v. Talluri Narayya
(deceased) and Ors. A.I.R. •194~ P.C.·, 32-;Sarju Parshad v. Rafa Jwaleshwari
Pratap Narain Singh and Ors., [1950] S.C.R. 781 ; and The Asiatic Steam Navl·
cation Co. Ltd ... v.·.Su~-[.,t. Arabinda Chakrppartl,.-.[1959] :Supp. 1 S.C.R. 979
-referred to.
·
I
In the instant case•the questioo,whethe'r the" appellant•·had .in-, fa-ct.f•bcen
adopted by Jaganoatbdas and Premwati had been determined by the tri~l court
essentially1on·the\basi~.~f oral testimony anQ.-referenc_e 1had.been made ·to a few
documents ;;only:;:dn ': supplo-mentation-,·of. the ·oral.-evidcnoe, 1 ~·- The judgment ·of.1tho
trial court showed that it had analysed the testilliony of each material witn'!S&-.and
in reaching its conclusions on the issues of fact it had relie.d in some instances
UP-{\D i~_,9w9~aPPf,~iS_f!.J of tQe rq~nn~.r in \\'.hiqh t.lje witne$$CS prese~t j)efpre it bad
fendered their testimony an~ ~~d.~eigAAd with,gfe.at_ ca~ the. probative_ value. of
the evidence in the context of established fact-. and probability. But the High
Co~r,t;Jia~, jn 4is~gr~ing,}yitl} the tri~Lcourt~ a)iQpted.~n erroneoq,$ apprpach. It
proceeded tO judge tbe credibility of the witnesses mainly with rCference to their
relationship with the parties without placing adequate weight on the nature of the
evidence and the· probabili~y of its truth· in ·the .. context· of ··the· surrounding cir-
cum'stances. It rejected the 1esti1:Dony of the'appellant's -witnesses substaOtially on
the

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