STATE OF BIHAR versus RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 20-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
808 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. 
April 20, 1983 
[S: MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, A. VAllADARAJAN 
AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
Genealogies considerations to be kept in view while considering.· 
Evidence Act; 1872-Entries in public records-Prepared by a public officer 
in discharge of his official duties-Probative value of-Sections 13, 40, 41, 42 and 
43-J?ecitale in judgments not inter partes-Section 32-Doctrine of post Iitem 
motafll-Appreciation of oral evidence in the 1natter of proof of pedigree-Hearsay 
· evidence seCtio11 60-S.tatement of person deposing a/act known from a different 
source-How far can be relied on Escheat-State not entering apperance-P/ea-Jf 
can be arcepted without public notice to persons interested. 
Interpretation-Dictionaries-How far can be used. 
Maharaja Hariodra Kishore Singh was the direct descendant of Debi 
Singh who was the son of Bansidhar Singh. Maharaja Harindra Kish ore Singh 
died issueless leaving behind vast properties in the states of Uttar Pradesh and 
:Bihar. The original plaintiff, Bhagwati Prasad Singh was the direct descendant 
of Ramruch Singh but his relationship with Bansidhar Singh had not been 
established. 
The 
plaintiffs-respondents basing their title as the nearest 
reversionors of Maharaja Harindra Kishore Singh claimed that they were 
entitled to immediate possession of the properties after the death of the widows 
of the Maharaja. 
The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove any 
linkage or connection between Ramruch Singh and Bansidhar Singh. But the 
majority of the High Court held that all the links were clearly proved by the 
plaintiffs and that it had been found to their satisfaction that.Ramruch was the ... 
son of Bansidhar. It also held that Ex. J which Was an entry made by a Public 
Officer in a register in the discharge of his official duties squarely falls within 
the four corners of section 35 of the Evidence Act and, is therefore, admissible 
in evidence. The appellants however, claimed that it was not admissible in 
evidence. 
HELD : In a hotly contested point, there is a tendency on the part of 
an interested person or a party in order to grab, establish or prove an alieged 
claim, to concoct, fabrica~e or procure false gellc·alogy to suit their ends. In 
relying on the genealogy Put forward, courts must guard themselves against 
falling into the trap laid by a series of documents or a labyrinth of seemingly 
Qld ~enealogies to support their rival clain1s. (820 H, 821 A] 
. .-
<
i 
t 
"" . 
l 
' 
The Prillciples governing such cases are•: 
(i) Geneaiogies admitted or proved to -be old and relied on in previous 
cases are doubtless relevant and in some cases may even ·be conclusive of the 
facts proved, but there are several considerations which must be kept In mind 
viz. : 
(a) Source of the genealogy and its dependability. 
(b) Admiosibility of the genealogy under the Evidence Act. 
(c) A proper use in decisions or judgments on which' reliance is 
placed. 
(d) Age of genealogies. 
(e) Litigations where such · genealogies have been accepted .or 
rejected. [821 B-E] 
(2) On the question of admissibility the following tests ·must be 
A 
B 
c 
adopted ; 
D · 
(a) The genealogies of the families concerned roust fall within the 
four-corners of s. 32(5) or s. 13 of the Evidence Act. 
(b) They must not be hit by the doctrine of post /item motam. 
(c) The genealogies or the claiffis cannot be proved by recitals, 
· E 
depositions or facts narrated in the judgment which have been 
held by a long course of decisions to be inadmissible. 
(d) Where genealogy is proved by oral evidence, the said evidence 
must clearly shew special means of knowledge disclosing the 
exact source, time and the circumstl\nces under which the 
knowledge is acquired, and this must be clearly and conclusively 
proved. [821 B-HJ 
The majority view that, Ex. J. is admissible js correct. 
Se•tion 35 of 
the Evidence Act requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a 
document can be admissible under this section : 
(I) the document must be in the nature of an entry ln any public 
or other official book, register or record, 
(2) it must statð a fact in issue or·a releva.nt fñct, 
F 
G 
(3) the entry must be made by a public servant lo the discharge of 
· H 
his official duties or in performance of his duties especi*lly 
enjoined by the law of the country in which the relevant entry 
is kept. 
[829 H, 830 A·B]

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