Uma Shankar Singh v. All sons of Late Dwarka Singh

Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 3 disposal of the appeal on merits.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that the common ancestor Tuso Singh had seven sons namely Amrit Singh, Aklu Singh, Ram Sahay Singh, Dwarika Singh, Kishun Singh, Brahmdeo Singh, Mahipat Singh out of whom admittedly Aklu Singh became traceless long ago leaving behind no heir. The plaintiff Brahmdeo Singh is one of the sons of Tuso Singh and has claimed partition of the suit properties mentioned in the schedules of the plaint. The ancestral properties have been mentioned in Schedule I and the properties mentioned in Schedule II are the properties said to have been purchased out of the income of the Schedule I properties. The Schedule III and IV contain the movable properties. The plaintiff accordingly has claimed 1/6th share in all those properties.

5. The suit has been contested mainly by the defendant nos.1 to 8 who are the descendants of the branch of Dwarika Singh.

6. In the written statement the contesting defendants have accepted that Aklu Singh had become traceless and his branch became extinct and have further stated that the two sons of Tuso Singh namely Ram Sahay Singh and Mahipat Singh also died issueless leaving behind their widows namely Phulwanti Kuer (defendant no. 13) and Parvati Kuer (defendant no.11) respectively. Their further case is that the remaining four brothers namely Dwarika Singh , Amrit Singh, Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 4 Kishun Singh and Brahmdeo Singh partitioned the joint family properties in the year 1935 and 1/4th share each was allotted to them in the joint family properties and according to the terms of the partition, Parwati Devi widow of Ram Sahay Singh remained with the branch of Dwarika Singh and is getting maintenance and similarly Phulwati Kuer widow of Mahipat Singh remained with the branch of Brahmdeo Singh and is getting maintenance. It is also the case of the defendants that later on Dwarika Singh and Kishun Singh reunited and similarly Amrit Singh and Brahmdeo Singh also reunited but thereafter in the year 1941-41 Kishun Singh and Dwarika Singh separated. These defendants have further categorically asserted that all the properties mentioned in Schedule II have not been acquired out of the joint family fund and have further in paragraph 9 of the written statement have described in detail the properties acquired out of joint family fund and have claimed the remaining properties mentioned in Schedule II as their self-acquired properties. These defendants have also given description of their self-acquired properties in Schedule I of the written statement and have further stated to have acquired title over the properties of Kishun Singh through purchase by registered sale deed dated 15.06.1961 executed by his widow Ramrati Kuer (defendant no. 12).

7. The defendant no.12 Ramrati Kuer , widow of Kishun Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 5 Singh, filed her separate written statement supporting the case of the contesting defendants 1 to 8. The defendant nos.9 and 10 who are descendants of the branch of Amrit Singh filed their separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff and have claimed their share to be carved out in the suit properties in case of partition.

8. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed altogether 8 issues out of which issue nos.3,4,5 and 6 have been tried as material issues and are as follows:- Issue No.3: Are the parties members of a joint Mitakshara family? Is there unity of interest and unity of possession between the parties in respect of the suit land? Issue No.4:- Have the parties separated in all respect in the year 1935? Issue No.5: Has the interest of Kishun Singh passed on to defendant nos.1 to 8 by virtue of the registered kebala executed by Srimati Ramrati Devi dated 15.05.1961? Issue No.6:- Are the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the written statement of defendant nos.1 to 8, the self acquired properties of the said defendants?

9. After the scrutiny of the pleading and evidence of the parties the trial court has decided all the aforesaid issues against the plaintiff and has held that there had been complete partition between the Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 6 parties in the year 1935 itself and has further held that the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the written statement of the contesting defendants 1 to 8 are their self acquired properties. It has also been held that the sale deed dated 15.05.1961 executed by the defendant no.12, Rampati Kuer in favour of the contesting defendants is legally valid document. The suit has, therefore, been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

10. Criticizing the impugned judgment, Mr Dronacharya, the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants has submitted that the findings recorded by the trial court are vitiated due to non-consideration of the evidence of the plaintiffs. It has been urged that the trial court has not considered the oral evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff which clearly support the case of the plaintiff with regard to the jointness and it has also been proponed that the documentary evidence of the plaintiff have also not been considered in entirety. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned court below has mainly relied upon the deposition made by the plaintiff Brahmdeo Singh in a criminal case which was not admissible in evidence and cannot be binding as an admission on the plaintiff. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that the attention of the plaintiff was not drawn, during the cross examination, to the statement said to have been made by him in the criminal case Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 7 and as such also the said statement could not have been relied upon. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors Vs Most Bhagirathi AIR 1966 SC 405 and in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs Ramchandra Nago Patil AIR 1977 SC 1712.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that I.A.No.5845/1998 has been filed on behalf of the appellants to adduce the sale deed executed by the parties during the pendency of this appeal as additional evidence and has prayed that the said application be allowed and the sale deed be taken in evidence as additional evidence in this appeal. It has been urged that the execution of the sale deed jointly by the parties with regard to some of the suit properties clearly support the case of the plaintiff regarding the jointness.

12. Supporting the impugned judgment Mr Ganpati Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has urged that the defendants have led unimpeachable documentary evidence leading to the inevitable conclusion that there had been previous partition between the parties in the year 1935. It has been submitted that the plaintiff Brahmdeo Singh in his deposition as prosecution witnesses in the criminal case relating to the murder of his family members, has accepted that there had been partition in the Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 8 family and he was separate from his co-sharers. It has been argued that the statement made by the plaintiff will clearly come within the category of admission and the provision of Section 145 of Evidence Act will not be attracted in such case. It has been further submitted that even the documentary evidence (Ext.1 and 1/A), adduced on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit, also support the case of the defendants and the trial court has meticulously examined the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties and has reached to the right conclusion that the status of jointness between the parties stood disrupted in the year 1935 itself. The learned counsel has also resisted the claim of the appellant to adduce additional evidence and has submitted that in view of the overwhelming documentary evidence on record, the prayer of adducing additional evidence should not be allowed and has also contended that the sale deed, sought to be adduced as additional evidence, does not support the case of the plaintiff regarding jointness as it has been executed by all the members of the family whereas in case of jointenss the sale deed is executed by Karta alone.

13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties the following points emerge for determination in this appeal:- (I) Whether the contesting defendants have succeeded in establishing complete partition between the parties in the Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 9 family in the year 1935? (II) Whether the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the defendant nos. 1 to 8 are their self acquired properties and the sale deed executed by 15.05.1961 executed by defendant no12 in favour of the contesting defendants is a legally valid document?

14. For convenience sake both the points are being taken up together for determination.

15. The plaintiffs’ case is that common ancestor Tuso Singh had seven sons namely Amrit Singh, Aklu Singh, Ram Sahay Singh, Dwarika Singh, Kishun Singh, Brahmdeo Singh and Mahipat Singh. The plaintiff has claimed 1/6th share in the properties mentioned in Schedule of the plaint as admittedly Aklu Singh, one of seven sons, became traceless long ago and his branch became extinct. The contesting defendant nos. 1 to 8 have resisted the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that there had already been complete partition in the family in the year 1935 among the four brothers namely Dwarika Singh , Amrit Singh, Kishun Singh and Brahmdeo Singh as the two brothers namely Ramshray Singh and Mahipat Singh died before the said partition leaving behind their widows namely Parwati Devi and Phulwati Devi who were entitled to maintenance. The defendants Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 10 have further claimed that all the properties mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint have not been acquired out of joint family fund and have further claimed that the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the written statement, also included in Schedule II of the plaint, are the self acquired properties of the defendants after the partition in the year

16. In view of the settled principle of law, the presumption of jointness of the family is in favour of the plaintiff and the burden of proof to establish their case of earlier partition in the family lies on the contesting defendants. In order to discharge their burden, the contesting defendants have led oral as well as documentary evidence. The defendants have brought on record the petition for rent reduction under Section 112 of Bihar Tenancy Act (Ext. K and K/1) filed by Amrit Singh on 05.07.1938 and 09.01.1940. Ext.W series are the rent reduction schedules prepared on the basis of the said prayer for reduction of rent. From the perusal of Ext.W it transpires that the lands mentioned in the name of Amrit Singh is 9.85 acres and the lands mentioned in the name of Dwarika Singh is 9.90 acres of land and those schedules have been separately prepared in their names. It would be pertinent to mention here that the contesting defendants in paragraph 9 have stated that in Tauji No.292 the parties had got total

20.83 acres of land as their ancestral and purchased land, and in Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 11 partition each of the four brothers got 5.21 decimal land in their shares. It is also their case that Dwarika Singh and Kishun Singh had reunited and similarly Amrit Singh and Brahmdeo Singh had also reunited. Further Ext. W/1 is the another rent reduction schedule for Tauji No.7637 and it shows that ½ of the lands of khata no.532 of the said Tauji has been shown each in the name of Dwarika Singh and Amrit Singh. Similarly Ext.V Series are also the statements showing reduction of rent and have been prepared separately in the names of Amrit Singh, Dwarika Singh and Kishun Singh for Tauji No. 7636. These statements have been prepared in the year 1939-40 and clearly demonstrate the separate status of the four brothers.

17. The next important documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the contesting defendants are the rent suit registers (Ext.P Series). The perusal of Ext.P/1 shows that the Rent Suit No. 1003/1952 had been instituted by the landlord against Ramrati Kumri widow of Kishun Singh for 5.35 acres of land of Tauji No. 292. Similarly Ext.P/2 is with regard to Rent Suit No. 1001/1952 against Sarjug Singh (defendant no.9) for 5.21 acres of land of Tauji No. 292; Ext.P/3 relates to the Rent Suit No.1002/1952 against the plaintiff Brahmdeo Singh for 5.21 acres of land of Tauji No.292 and Ext. P is with regard to the Rent Suit No.1007/1952 against Dwarika Singh for

5.21 acres of land Tauji No. 292. It has not been disputed that in Tauji Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 12 No. 292 the parties have got 20.83 acres of land and thus evidently the ex-landlord had sued the four brothers or their branches for 5.21 acres of land separately. These documentary evidence support the case of the contesting defendants regarding previous partition.

18. At this juncture it would also be relevant to mention that on behalf of the plaintiffs two suit registers have been brought in evidence as Ext.1 and Ext.1/A which show that the Rent Suit No.3301/41- and 3304/41 had been filed against the defendant Brahmdeo Singh and the defendant no.1 Dwarika Singh separately by the ex-landlord for the realization of rent. Instead of the supporting case of jointness as pleaded by the plaintiff, these two exhibits support the case of the contesting defendants that the records of the landlord had been separately maintained for the lands of the plaintiff and the lands of Dwarika Singh.

19. Further the defendants have brought on record the extract from the Jamabandi (Register II) of Tauji No. 292 as Ext. F Series and the perusal of the entries therein reveals that the names of Dwrika Singh, Brahmdeo Singh, Saryu Singh, Ramrati Kuer had been entered separately with respect to separate areas of land. Coupled with this are the rent receipts (Ext.B Series) which also depict the same fact situation showing that the rent had been paid by the four brothers separately for the lands recorded in the Jamabandi in their names. The Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 13 chaukidari registers of the year 1944-45 (Ext.C Series) and the chaukidari receipts (Ext.D Series) also support the case of the contesting defendants that the four brothers had separate residence and they had been paying Chaukidari tax separately. In addition to the aforesaid documents, the defendants have also brought on record the sale deeds (Ext.A Series) from which it transpires that the four brothers have been acquiring land in their separate names. It will be significant to take into notice Ext.A/9 which is a sale deed dated

16.07.1941 by which Dwarika Singh and Brahmdeo Singh purchased land but their shares in the purchased land had been defined in the sale deed. Similarly Ext.A/2 is another sale deed dated 07.09.1944 whereby Amrit Singh, Dwarika Singh and Saheb Singh together purchased 3.94 acres of land with definite share in the purchased property. The other sale deeds in evidence also show the transactions by the four brothers in their individual capacity for specific properties. The transactions revealed by these sale deeds are more compatible with the separate status of the four brothers as asserted by the defendants than the case of jointness as propounded by the plaintiff.

20. The inference flowing from the aforesaid documentary evidence is further strengthened by the depositions of the plaintiff himself, made in two criminal cases, which have been adduced in evidence as Ext.T and Ext.T/2 on behalf of the defendants. Ext.T is Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 14 the deposition of the plaintiff as prosecution witness in Sessions Trial No. 24/45 and had been recorded on 02.07.1945. It is not in dispute between the parties that the Sessions Case No.24/45 related to the trial of the accused persons for the murder of Amrit Singh, Kishun Singh and Ganga Singh. In his cross examination the plaintiff has stated as follows:- “…I am separate from Dwarika Singh. We 4 brothers separated from one another 10 or 15 years ago. I have shares of Khetari land. I do not recollect what is the rental of those two Bighas. I look after my affairs. Jhari Mahto is the patwari of Rameshwar Babu. Rameshwar Babu has no patwari at present. Separate rent receipts are granted on behalf of Rameshwar Babu. I have not paid him rent for 4 years. He has sued me for rent….”

21. The plaintiff in his deposition in another criminal case G.R.No.514/63 wherein he was examined as prosecution witness no.6 on 25.07.1964 had deposed as follows: “lqjs’k flag eq>ls bygnk gSA [ksrh ikuh btekby gh gSA Qhj cksyrs gSa fd [ksr okjh Hkh muls eq>s caVh gqbZ gS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- eSa dqN tehu tksr vkckn djrk gwaA eSa lkr foxgk /kku dk [ksr tksrrk gwaA ikap foxgk joh Hkh tksrrk gwaA eSa ugha dg ldrk gwa fd njokjh oxSj fdruk tehu tksrrs gSa---”

22. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 15 submitted that the aforesaid statements made by the plaintiff cannot be taken to be his admission and are also not admissible in evidence in view of Section 145 of the Evidence Act as the attention of the plaintiff was not drawn to the aforesaid statements during his cross examination in this suit. This submission is clearly misconceived inasmuch as the aforesaid statements were the statements by the plaintiff himself and not by any other witness examined in this suit. The principle of law enshrined in Section 145 Evidence Act is not attracted in the case of the statement made by a party to the suit. This distinction has been clearly highlighted by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors Vs Most Bhagirathi AIR 1966 SC 405 where it has been laid down as follows:- “…Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against the person making them. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. We are of opinion that the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 16 witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission. Admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness. What weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different its use as admissible evidence…”

23. Moreover from the deposition of the plaintiff as P.W.13 in this suit it also appears that he has been confronted with the aforesaid deposition made by him in the criminal case and he has only denied to have made such statement. In view of the principle enshrined by the Apex Court as aforementioned, there is no scope for accepting the submission on behalf of the appellant to discard the aforesaid statement of the plaintiff from consideration. Thus in view of the documentary evidence as afore-discussed coupled with the admission of the plaintiff, there remains no doubt that the contesting defendants have succeeded in discharging their burden and have proved their case of partition in the year 1935 between the four brothers namely Amrit Singh, Dwarika Singh , Kishun Singh and Brahmdeo Singh. Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 17

24. Although it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court has not considered the oral evidence of the plaintiff but during the course of submission, no substantial oral evidence could be placed on behalf of the appellants to contradict and displace the conclusions flowing from documentary evidence as discussed. The trial court has meticulously scanned the evidence of the parties and has based his conclusions on the basis of appreciation of evidence. I do not find any illegality in the finding by the trial court that there had been division of the properties between the four brothers in the year 1935.

25. The appellants have filed I.A.No.5845/98 praying to adduce in evidence the sale deed dated 21.10.1997. The perusal of the certified copy of the sale deed, annexed as Annexure-1 to the interlocutory application shows that Darbari Singh, Kapildeo Singh, Arjun Prasad Singh, Uma Shankar Singh and Most Kanti Devi widow of Late Saryu Singh have together executed the said sale deed transferring an area of 1.40 acres of Plot No. 1925 of village-Kair District-Munger in favour of the purchaser Adhik Yadav. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the execution of the sale deed jointly by all the cosharers is evidence of their joint status as claimed by the plaintiff. However, from the perusal of the schedules of the plaint, it appears that 1.40 acres of land of Plot No.1925 has Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 18 been mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint which has been claimed by the plaintiff as the ancestral land. If the case of the plaintiff is to be accepted than this sale deed should have been executed by Dwarika Singh alone whom the plaintiff has claimed to be the Karta of the family. There is no explanation on behalf of the appellants as to why all the cosharers joined together to execute the sale deed which fact is definitely not inconsonance with the jointness. Moreover there is nothing stated in the said sale deed to support the case of jointenss as pleaded by the plaintiff. In view of the evidence already on record as earlier discussed I do not find that the appellants have succeeded in making out a case of admitting this sale deed as additional evidence in appeal. Accordingly, interlocutory application (I.A.No.5845/98) is rejected.

26. So far as the validity of the sale deed dated 15.05.1961 executed by the defendant no.12 Ramrati Kuer widow of Kishun Singh in favour of the contesting defendants is concerned, in view of the finding that Kishun Singh became separate from his brothers and in view of the admitted position that he was murdered in the year 1945, the conclusion is in-escapable that his widow Ramrati Kuer inherited his properties as his only heir and as such she was definitely entitled to alienate the same by execution of the sale deed dated

15.05.1961 (Ext.A/8) in favour of the contesting defendants. Patna High Court FA No.582 of 1968 dt.06-08-2013 19 Moreover in her written statement also she has accepted the execution of the sale deed after receiving the consideration money. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the assertion on behalf of the plaintiff that the said sale deed is not a legally valid document as no consideration had passed.

27. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons and discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned court below is affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Nitesh/- (V. Nath, J)