LexSARJU PERSHAD versus RAJA JWALESHWARI PRATAP NARAIN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS SARJU PERSHAD v. RAJA JWALESH\VARI PRATAP NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS [SAIYID F AZL ALI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and MUKHERJEA JJ.J 781 Practice-Appellate court-Finding of fact depending on credi- bility of witnesses-Interference-Correct principle. When there is conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon tbe credibility of the witnesses, then unless there is some special feature a.bout the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped the trial judge's notice or there is a sufficient balance of improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lies, the appel- late court should not interfere with tho finding of the trial judge on a question of fact. It would not detract from tbe value to be attached to a trial judge's finding or fact if the judge does not expressly base his conclusion upon the impressions he gathers from the demeanour of witnesses. The rule is, however, only a. rule of practice and docs not mean that the court of first instance can be treated as illfallible in deterrnining which, side is telling the truth or is refraining from exaggeration. [Where the High Court reversed a finding of fact arrived &t by the trial court depending on oral evidence on the ground that the rule that the appellate court should be slow to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the trial judge who had seen and heard the witnesses did not apply to the case as the trial judge did not ba.se bis conclusions on the impressions created in hie mind by the witnesses who deposed before him, but upon the inherent impl'Obabi!ity of the circumstances deposed to, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach to the case was not proper and, alter weighing the whole evidence in the case, reversed the finding of the High Court.] W. O. Macdonald v. Fred Latimer (A.LR. 1929 P.O. 15 at p.18), Watts v. Thomas ([1947] A.O. 484 at p. 486), Saraveeraswami v. Talluri (A.I.R. 1949 P. C. 32), Netherlandsche Handel Maatschappij v. R. M. P. Ohettiar Firm and Others (A.I.R. 1929 P.O. 202, 205), referred to. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. LXX of 1949. Appeal from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Verma and Yorke JJ.) dated the 22nd April, 1943. JOO 1950 Nov. 1!. L 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] t95o M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (Sri .- Narain Andley, with him), for the appellant. SarJU Pershad L . (H j U · 'th h' ) f th •. P. . Banerjee . . mrigar, w1 1m , or e Raia respondents. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain 1950. November 14. The judgment of the Court S.ngh .t Others was delivered by Mukherjea J. MuKHERJEA J.-This is an appeal against a judg- ment and decree of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated April 22, 1943, which reversed on appeal those of the Civil Judge of Basti dated 6th of November 1939. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was com- menced by the plaintiff, whose successor the present appellant is, to recover a sum of Rs. 11,935 by enforce- ment of a simple mortgage bond. The mortgage deed is dated the 8th of March 1926 and was executed by Raja Pateshwari Partap Narain Singh, the then holder of Basti Raj which is an impartible estate governed by the rule of primogeniture, in favour of Bhikhiram Sahu, the father of the original plaintiff Ramdeo, to secure a loan of Rs. 5,500 advanced by the mortgagee on hypothecation of certain immovable properties apper- taining to the estate of the mortgagor. The loan carried interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum and there was a stipulation to pay the mortgage money within one year from the date of the bond. The mortgagor and the mortgagee were both dead at the time when the suit was instituted, and the plaintiff in the action was Ramdeo Sahu, the son and heir of the mortgagee, while the principal defendant was the eldest son of the mortgagor who succeeded to the Basti estate under the rule of primogeniture. It was stated in the plaint that absolutely nothing was paid by the mort- gagor or his successor towards the mortgage dues and the plaintiff claimed the principal amount of Rs. 5,500 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum up to the date of the suit. A number of pleas were taken by the contesting defendant in answer to the plaintiff's claim, most of which are not relevant for our present purpose. The Iii S.C.R. SUPREME C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.