9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against decree of Judicial Commissioner, Jurisdiction of Judicial Commissioner on second appeal, Grounds for second appeal under Section 584 of Civil Procedure Code, Partition of family property, Evidence presented in support of partition, Settlement proceedings in 1864, Misapprehension of evidence by Lower Appellate Court, Error or defect in procedure, Review of Commissioner's finding, Applicability of previous judgments in India, Second appeal based on erroneous finding of fact, Finality of first Appellate Court's finding on question of fact, Meagre judgment by Commissioner, Certificate of substantial question of law by Judicial Commissioner, Dismissal of appeal and costs. Analysis: The judgment in question involves an appeal against a decree of the Judicial Commissioner, which affirmed a decree reversing a decision of the Assistant Commissioner regarding a partition of family property. The Judicial Commissioner's jurisdiction on second appeal was challenged, citing the grounds specified in Section 584 of the Civil Procedure Code. The case revolved around the widow's claim to certain villages registered in her husband's name, allegedly part of a partition in 1857. Evidence, including witness testimonies and a petition, was presented to support the partition. However, the Settlement proceedings in 1864 and other factors led to a different conclusion by the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court found that the burden of proving partition fell on the widow, and she failed to do so adequately. The settlement proceedings were considered crucial in disproving the partition, and the oral evidence was deemed of little weight. The judgment highlighted the lack of documentary evidence supporting the partition claim. Additionally, the document presented by the widow was deemed untrustworthy, further weakening her case. The Commissioner's judgment was criticized for its brevity, indicating a lack of detailed analysis, potentially leading to an unnecessary appeal. The appellant argued for a review of the Commissioner's finding based on an error or defect in procedure, citing previous Indian judgments allowing interference in case of misapprehension of evidence by the Lower Appellate Court. However, the Privy Council clarified that an erroneous finding of fact does not constitute an error in procedure justifying a second appeal. The finality of the first Appellate Court's finding on questions of fact was emphasized, barring further review based on factual errors. The Privy Council expressed regret over the handling of the case by both the Commissioner and the Judicial Commissioner, ultimately advising dismissal of the appeal and ordering the appellant to pay the costs.
|
