1966 (8) TMI 69 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the deed of gift executed by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer.
2. Succession rights of Basudeo Narain and his heirs.
3. Determination of the timeline of deaths of Basudeo Narain and his father Ramruch.
4. Admissibility and probative value of a statement made by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer in 1925.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Deed of Gift Executed by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer:
The plaintiffs-respondents contested the validity of a deed of gift executed by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer in favor of the appellant, Ramrati Kuer. They claimed that Mst. Phuljhari Kuer had no right to the properties, and thus the deed was not binding on them. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision, declaring the gift deed invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that Mst. Phuljhari Kuer's deed of gift was not valid.

2. Succession Rights of Basudeo Narain and His Heirs:
The core issue was whether Basudeo Narain died before or after his father Ramruch. If Basudeo Narain predeceased his father, the plaintiffs-respondents would inherit the property. Conversely, if he died after his father, his widows and daughter would inherit the property. The High Court and the Supreme Court both concluded that Basudeo Narain died before his father, thereby making the plaintiffs-respondents the rightful heirs.

3. Determination of the Timeline of Deaths of Basudeo Narain and His Father Ramruch:
The timeline of deaths was crucial to determining the rightful heirs. The trial court found that Basudeo Narain died after his father, based on the evidence and conduct of the parties over 30 years. However, the High Court and the Supreme Court found that Basudeo Narain died before his father, relying heavily on a statement made by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer in 1925. This statement indicated that Ramruch left the village a month after Basudeo Narain's death and was never heard of again.

4. Admissibility and Probative Value of a Statement Made by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer in 1925:
The statement made by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer in a 1925 mortgage suit was pivotal. She stated that her husband, Basudeo Narain, died before his father, Ramruch. The Supreme Court considered the admissibility of this statement under Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows statements against proprietary interest to be admissible if the person is deceased. The Court found that Mst. Phuljhari Kuer's statement was made consciously and not at the instance of Basekhi Singh, thereby giving it significant probative value. The Court also addressed the appellant's argument that the statement was contradicted by the gift deed of 1953, finding no direct contradiction and attributing less weight to the gift deed due to the context in which it was made.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the deed of gift executed by Mst. Phuljhari Kuer was invalid and that the plaintiffs-respondents were the rightful heirs to the property. The Court also granted the appellant a half share in one item of property as a modification. The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to this modification.