LexMST. RAMRATI KUER versus DWARIKA PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H MST. RAMRATI KUER v. DW ARIKA PRASAD SINGH AND ORS. August 24, 1966 [K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), ss. 32, 158-Deponent's ad- mission againsit his interest--Conscious knowledge, if necessary-Later statement to ccmtradict, relevancy. The appellant's mother executed a gift deed in favour of the appel- lant claiming that she inherited the property in 1920 on the death of her husband, who had inherited it from her father-in-law. The respondents claiming title to the property filed a suit challenging the gift doeed on the ground that the father-in-law of the dono< (mother) had survived the husband and therefore she could not have inherited the property under the Hindu Law as then pre.vailing. For this purpose the respondents relied 'Upon a statement, that the father-in-law had survived the husband, made by the donor in a mortgage suit in 1925, to establish her case. When this statement was made there was no dispute in the faimly. On the questions whether, (i) this statement in the mortgage suit \vas admissible in evidence and (ii) the statement made by the donor in the gift deed was admissibk~ to contradict the statement she made in the mortgage suit. HELD: (i) This st~tement in the mortgage suit, which was againat proprietary interest of the mother would be admi-s~de in evidence under s. 32(3) of the Evidence Act, "8 she was dead. It could not be an admission, so far the appellant was concerned, but it would certainly be a piece of eviden~e to be taken into considerati-:>n. The admissibility of statements under s. 32(3) of the Evidence Act does not arise unless the party knows the statement to be against his interest. But the question whether the statement .was madoe consciously with the knowledge that it was against the interest of the person making it would be a question of fact in each case and would depend in most cases on the circumstances in which the statement was made. [l 58 F-G; 159 A-Bl Srlma!I Savltrl Debi v. Raman Bljoy, L.R. (1949) LXXVI I.A. 255, Tucker v. O/dburry Urban District Council, L.R. [l912] 2 K.B. 317 and Ward v. H. S. Pitt [1913] 2 K.B. 130, relied on. The statement W. question was made by the mother consciously and not at th·e instance of any one and she must, in the circumstances of the case, be presumed to know that the statement was against her pro- prietary in.terest, for thereby she became the widow of the predeceased son of her father-in-law. [159 G] (ii) Assuming that the statements in the gift dead would be admissible under s. HS of the Evidence Act the statement made in the mortgage suit in 1925 carries greater weight as it was made at a time when there was no dispute in. the family, [160 E-FJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 981 of 1964. Ml4Sup. CI/66-11 SUPRRMI! COURT RBPOllTS [1967] I s.c.R. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December A 22, 1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 223 of 1957. Bishan Narain aRd U. P. Singh, for the appellant. Sarjoo Prasad, B. K. Saran, A. B. S. Sinha, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wancboo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court. A suit was brought by the plaintiffi-res- pondents for a declaration, and in the alternative for possession, in respect of certain properties. It was prayed that a deed of gift executed on July 31, 1953 by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer in favour of the appellant Ramrati Kuer was not binding on the plaintiffs- respondents. Mst. Phuljhari Kuer was originally a defendant but died during the pendency of the suit. The case of the respondents was that the common ancestor of the parties Ramcharan Singh bad three sons, namely, Ramruch, Uttim Narain and Basekhi Singh. After the death of Ramcharan Singh, his three sons sepa- rated in status though the properties were not divided by metes and bounds. Uttim Narain died sometime before 1900 leaving a widow Mst. Zira Kuer but no children, and Mst. Zira Kuer in her turn died in 1943. Ramruch had a son Basudeo Narain. According to the respondents, Basudeo Narain died during the life-time of his father sometime about the revisional settlement which took place between 1917-1920. As Basudeo Narain was the only son of Ramruch the latter was greatly grieved on his premature death and he left bis home about a m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.