9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit for possession and mesne profits. 2. Plaintiffs' claim to be the next reversioners. 3. Defence regarding Schedule III properties. 4. Admissibility of evidence for proving reversionership. 5. Claim of Schedule III properties belonging to Naubat Lal's estate. Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal and a cross-appeal against a judgment of the Patna High Court in a suit for possession and mesne profits. The property in question originally belonged to Naubat Lal Jha, and the plaintiffs claim to be the next reversioners. The defence challenges the plaintiffs' reversionership claim and specifically disputes the ownership of properties listed in Schedule III of the plaint. 2. The lower Courts have found that the second party plaintiffs have proven their title as the next reversioners to Naubat Lal Jha. The trial Court decreed the entire claim based on this finding, but the High Court upheld the defendants' argument regarding the Schedule III properties. The High Court modified the decree and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to those specific properties. 3. The key issue regarding the reversionership claim revolves around the admissibility of evidence. The plaintiffs relied on a genealogical tree, primarily supported by the testimony of the 5th plaintiff. The lower Courts also used Panjis (pedigree records) as corroboration. The admissibility of these Panjis was challenged based on when they were dictated and maintained. 4. The Panjis, maintained by professional genealogists, were considered admissible evidence by the Courts. The entries in the Panjis were proven to be from proper custody and were maintained in the ordinary course of business. The Panjis were divided into two categories: those dictated by the 5th plaintiff and those dictated by others. Both sets were found to be admissible and provided sufficient corroboration for the plaintiffs' reversionership claim. 5. Regarding the Schedule III properties, the plaintiffs needed to establish that these properties formed part of Naubat Lal's estate to claim ownership. The widow, Mst. Chhemawati, purchased these properties using savings from her husband's estate. However, the widow's intention was crucial in determining whether these properties were part of her husband's estate or her separate property. The widow's dedication of the properties to family deities indicated her intention to keep them separate, as supported by the evidence presented. 6. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the lower Courts' findings regarding the reversionership claim and the Schedule III properties. The defendants' appeal challenging the reversionership claim was dismissed, as the evidence presented was deemed legally admissible and sufficient. The plaintiffs' appeal regarding the Schedule III properties was also dismissed, as the evidence supported the widow's intention to keep those properties separate from her husband's estate.
|
