1983 (4) TMI 233 - SC - Indian Laws

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 alleged claim, to concoct, fabricate or procure false genealogy 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 old genealogies to support their rival claims.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and probative value of genealogical documents.
2. Proof of genealogy through oral evidence.
3. Determination of the nearest reversioner.
4. Claim of escheat by the State.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility and Probative Value of Genealogical Documents:
The primary issue was whether the genealogical documents presented by the plaintiffs were admissible and, if so, their probative value. The court held that while some documents, like Ex. J, were admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, their probative value was minimal. The court emphasized that the source of the genealogy and its dependability must be scrutinized. Documents like Ex. V, DD/30, and DD/31 were found inadmissible under the doctrine of post litem motam and because they were not judgments inter partes. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the crucial links in their genealogy through reliable documentary evidence.

2. Proof of Genealogy Through Oral Evidence:
The court examined the oral testimonies of witnesses DWs 13, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. It emphasized the need for witnesses to have special means of knowledge and to be free from bias. The court found the oral evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies, lack of special means of knowledge, and the interested nature of the witnesses. For instance, DW-33, Bhairo Prasad, was found to have a weak memory and inconsistent statements. Similarly, DW-21, Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, and DW-34, Nagendra Kumar, were found to have fabricated their testimonies. The court concluded that the oral evidence did not establish the necessary genealogical links.

3. Determination of the Nearest Reversioner:
The plaintiffs claimed to be the nearest reversioners of the late Maharaja Harendra Kishore Singh. The court held that while the plaintiffs proved their descent from Gajraj Singh, they failed to establish the crucial links between Gajraj Singh, Ramruch Singh, and Bansidhar Singh. The court emphasized that every link in the genealogical chain must be proved, and even one missing link invalidates the claim. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Gajraj Singh was the son of Ramruch Singh and that Ramruch Singh was the son of Bansidhar Singh.

4. Claim of Escheat by the State:
The State of Bihar claimed the properties by escheat, arguing that the late Maharaja left no heirs. The court held that the State did not enter the arena as a plaintiff to claim the properties and did not provide public notice to allow potential heirs to come forward. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies heavily on the State to prove the absence of any heirs. The trial court's acceptance of the escheat claim was found to be incorrect. The court left the question of escheat open, to be determined in a properly constituted action by the State.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the plaintiffs' suits were dismissed. The court affirmed the dissenting judgment of M.M. Prasad, J., and held that the plaintiffs failed to prove they were the nearest reversioners of the late Maharaja. The question of escheat was left undecided, maintaining the status quo with the properties under the management of the Court of Wards of the State of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.