Patna High Court
Ramesh Chandra Rai & Ors vs Rajeshwar Singh & Ors on 25 November, 2014
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.342 of 1981
=======================================================
1 (i) Kusum Devi D/o Lakhpati Rai W/o Yamuna Singh, Village
Rustamganj, P.S. Naubatpur, Patna
(ii) Mato Devi W/o Lakhpati Rai W/o Triyugi Singh Village Sarthuan
P.S. Sandesh, Bhojpur
2. (i) Sushila Devi D/o Shamsher Singh W/o Arjun Prasad, village Budhu
Chapra, P. S. Bikram, Patna
(ii) Phul Kuer Devi D/o Shamsher Singh W/o Deonath Rai village
Karampur, P.S. Naubatpur
(iii) Mulka Devi D/o Shamsher Singh W/o Kamla Singh village Simri
P.S. Bihta, Patna
(iv) Pruna Devi D/o Shamsher Singh W/o Bhagwan Singh
village Simri P.S. Bihta, Patna
(v) Bhagmani Devi D/o Shamsher Singh W/o Bhuwneshwar Singh
village Aslan, P.S. Garhani, Bhojpur
(vi) Shakuntala Devi D/o Shamsher Singh W/o Aditya Singh
village Kasiha P.S. Chandi, Bhojpur
3. (i) Upendra Pratap Singh son of Late Ramrup Singh village
Sikandarpur, P.S. Bihta, Patna
(ii) Champa Devi D/o Ramrup Singh W/o Shyam Narain Singh village
Jahanpur, P.S. Koilwar, Bhojpur
4. (i) Lalpari Devi W/o Late Banke Bihari Singh village Sikandarpur P.S.
Bihta, Patna
5. Ramesh Chandra Rai
6. Suresh Chandra Rai
7. Dinesh Chandra Rai, all sons of Lakhpati Rai, village Sikandarpur, P.S.
Bihta, Patna
8. (i) Yogmaya Devi W/o Late Abhay Kr. Singh
(ii) Avinash Kumar S/o Late Abhay Kr. Singh both resident of village
Sikandarpur, P.S. Bihta, Patna
(iii) Snehlata W/o Ved Prakash & D/o Late Abhay Kr. Singh R/o
village Dehri-on-sone P.S. Dalmiya Nagar, Rohtas
(iv) Pratima Devi W/o Dr.Asok Kr. & D/o Late Abhay Kr. Singh R/o
village Mohalla Yarpur P.S. Jakkanpur, Patna
(v) Prabha Devi W/o Basant Kr. & Daughter of Late Abhay Kr. Singh
R/o village Bhadeya P.s. Muffasil,Ara, Bhojpur
9. (i) Dhanwanti Devi W/o Late Mahendra Pratap Singh
(ii) Gajendra Pratap Singh
(iii) Sintu Kumar
(iv) Purnanand Kumar all sons of Late Mahendra Pratap Singh
(v) Renuka Kumari D/o Late Mahendra Pratap Singh all resident of
Sikandarpur P.S. Bihta, Patna
(vi) Smt. Chandomati D/o Late Mahendra Pratap Singh village
and P.S. Changar, Patna
10. Birendra Pratap Singh
11. Narendra Pratap Singh both sons of Late Ramrup Singh
12. Smt. Darbeshwari Devi W/o Ramesh Chandra Rai all resident of
village Sikandarpur P.S. Bihta, Patna
.... .... Appellants
2 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014
2 / 16
Versus
1. (A) (i) Ram Seni Devi W/o Late Rajballabh Singh
(ii) Shailendra Singh son of Late Rajballabh Singh
(iii) Mahendra Singh Late Rajballabh Singh all resident of village
Bidauli P.O. Katishar, P.S. Bihta, Patna at present village P.s.
Beramo, Dhanbad, Jharkahan
1. (B) (i) Manorama Devi W/o Late Rajeshwari Singh
(ii) Bidya Singh son of Late Rajeshwari Singh
(iii) (Bedu Singh son of Late Rajeshwari Singh
(iv) Ranjit Singh son of Late Rajeshwari Singh all residents of village
Maharrampur Badule, P.S. Bihta, Patna
(v) Indumati Devi D/o Late Rajeshwari Singh W/o Sukdeo Singh,
Village Bahpura P.S. Bihta, Patna
1. (C) (i) Most Sushila Devi W/o Deveshwar Singh village Muharrampur
Badule P.S. Bihta, Patna
2 (i) Kusum Kumari Devi wife of Late Rajnath Singh
(ii) Sanjay Kr. Singh son of Late Rajnath Singh
(iii) Mukul Kr. Singh son Late Rajnath Singh
(iv) Dhrmendra Kr. Singh son of Late Rajnath singh, all residents of village
Muharrampur Badauli P.S. Bihta,Patna
3. Smt. Basiya Devi wife of Ram Lakhan Singh resident of village
Chardaur P.S. Punpun, Patna
4. Smt. Indra Basiya Devi W/o Mahendra Singh resident of village Sohgi
P.S. Phulwari, Patna
5. Smt. Sushila Devi D/o Late Sarju Saran Singh
6. Smt. Shanti Kumari D/o Late Sarju Saran Singh
7. Rajballabh Singh
8 Rajeshwar Singh
9. Daneshwar Singh all sons of Ramashis Singh
10. Shailendra Singh
11. Mahendra Singh both sons of Rajballabh Singh
12 Bindeo Singh son of Rajeshwar Singh all resident of village
Muharrampur Badauli P.S. Bihta,Patna
13. (i) Kapildeo Singh
(ii) Sajeev Singh
(iii) Sudha Kumari all sons and daughter of Late Lal Bihari Singh residents of
village Allauddin Chak P.S. Punpun, Patna
(iv) Smt. Sanjukta D/o Late Lal Bihari Singh W/o Ram Ugrah Singh village
Kachauri P.S. Punpun, Patna
14. Rajmani Devi wife of Ram Sewak Singh village Kurthaul, P.S.
Phulwari, Patna
15. Shiv Dulari Devi wife of Mohan Singh village Palanga, P.S. Punpun Patna
16. Devendra Singh son of Late Awadh Saran Singh resident of village
Muharrampur Badauli P.S. Bihta Patna
17. Bijendra Singh son of Late Awadh Saran Singh resident of village
Muharrampur Badauli P.S. Bihta Patna
18. Sarvanand Singh son of Deep Narayan Singh resident of village Muharrampur
Badauli P.S. Bihta Patna
19. Laliteshwar Singh son of Brijnandan Singh village Jalalpur P.S. Dinapur, Patna
20. Surendra Singh
21. Ramlal Singh
22. Arjun Singh all sons of Sarvanand Singh village Adhiba P.S. Phulwari, Patna
.... .... Respondents
3 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014
3 / 16
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Uday Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birendra Kant Chaudhary
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 25-11-2014
The plaintiffs-appellants have filed the present appeal to assail
the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1981 passed by the learned 2nd Addl.
District Judge, Patna in T.A. No.29/16 of 1968/1976 affirming the
judgment and decree dated 05.02.1968 passed by the Addl. Subordinate
Judge, IV, Patna in T.S. No. 87/14 of 1961.
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaring that
they had absolute title to the extent of 2/3rd share in schedule I
land/property and for further declaring that the contesting defendants had
no title to the same. Ancillary relief(s) including recovery of possession
were also sought for.
The case of the plaintiffs, in a nutshell, is that one Rajaram
Mahto possessed 14.28 acres of kast lands which were recorded in the
survey record of rights under khata nos. 110 and 92. In the year 1928
Rajaram died leaving behind his widow Most. Rukmini and a daughter
called Ramsakhi Kuer who was married to Sarbanand Singh of village
Adhapa within the P.S. jurisdiction Phulwari of Patna district. Most.
Rukmani inherited the property of her husband and after her death in 1930
the suit property was inherited by her daughter namely Ramsakhi who
came in possession thereof until her death in 1953. Ramsakhi in order to
meet her legal necessity entered into an agreement with one Laliteshwar
Pd. Singh (defendant no.20) for sale of her lands and executed the
4 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014
4 / 16
registered Baibeyana deed dated 04.11.1953 (Ext.11). Subsequently, she
died on 27.11.1953 before executing the sale deed. Her husband Sarbanand
for and on behalf of his minor children fulfilled the legal obligation and
executed the registered sale deed dated 18.02.1954(Ext.1/a) in favour of
Laliteshwar Pd. Singh(defendant no.20) after receiving the balance of the
consideration money. Subsequently, Laliteshwar Pd. Singh by another sale
deed dated 09.01.1956 (Ext.1/b) sold portion/part of the land measuring
2.93 acres to the plaintiffs and one Somenath Singh(defendant no.24) who
came in possession thereof after getting their names mutated in the
revenue records. After the death of Most. Rukmani in 1930 Ramdayal,
Deosaran and Ramdas claiming to be the agnates of Rajaram executed a
sham and showy sale deed (Ext.1/c) in respect of the suit land and another
plot in favour of one Baikunth Nath Singh who was Phuphera brother of
Ramdayal. The purchaser, however, never came in possession of the suit
land/property. Ramsakhi on being informed protested to such alienation
and on the intervention of the villages and well-wishers Ramdayal was
compelled to make over the original sale deed (Ext. 1/c) to Most.
Ramsakhi. Further case of the plaintiffs is that after the sale deed dated
09.01.1956(Ext.1/b) the contesting respondents in connivance with Ramdayal got a „Ladavinama‟ dated 05.12.1956 (Ext.G) executed by one Sumeshwar Singh (D.W.10) and the elder son of the deceased Baikunth for and on behalf of his minor brothers in favour of Munglal(defendant no.13). According to the recitals in „Ladavinama‟ the sale deed 21.07.1933 (Ext.1/c) executed by Ramdayal, Deosaran and Ramdas was a Farzi deed and the real purchasers were the contesting respondents. On the strength of the said „Ladavinama‟ the contesting defendants made attempt(s) to 5 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 5 / 16 obstruct the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land resulting in initiation of a proceeding under sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. In these setting of facts, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the aforesaid relief(s).
The defendants appeared and contested the suit refuting the claim of the plaintiff that Rajaram had no brother by the name of Cheturi who died leaving behind his widow Jamuni Kuer. According to the contesting defendants, Rajaram was the owner of the suit land. He also possessed other lands by inheritance after the death of the recorded tenant Most. Jamuni Kuer. Rajaram died in 1928 and upon his death his widow Most. Rukmini Kuer inherited the suit land. The defendants also disputed the fact that Rajaram had a daughter called Ramsakhi. According to the defendants he had a daughter called Deojhari who was married to Chet Narain Singh of village Khaira and died only a few months after her marriage in 1922 during the lifetime of her father Rajaram. Ramsakhi was in fact the daughter of Nandu Singh and the own sister of Ramdayal Singh(defendant no.19) and her husband Sarbanand Singh was the brother- in-law of Ramdayal. Ramdayal had set up her own sister with a view to lay a false claim over the property left behind by Rajaram and/or his widow. After the death of Rukmini (widow) in 1930, Ramdayal, Deosaran and Ram Das being the nearest agnates and legal heirs of Rajaram came in possession of the properties which were recorded as such in the Sharista of the landlord. Deosaran died leaving behind his daughter Songouri Kuer and three Natis. Ram Das also died leaving behind his widow Ramjhari and one son. Thus after the death of Deosaran and Ram Das their heirs came in possession of not only the land belonging to Deosaran and Ram Das respectively but also the land left behind by Rajaram. In the year 1944 6 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 6 / 16 Baikunth Nath Singh died leaving behind two sons namely Shumeshwar Kr. Singh and Surender Kumar. Shumeshar for himself and as a guardian of his minor brother executed a „Ladavinama‟ (Ext.G) on 05.12.1956 in favour of Munglal Singh(defendant no.13) with respect to land covered by sale deed dated 21.07.1933 standing in the name of their father who was only a name lender. The defendants purchased the suit land along with other lands from Ramdayal, Deosaran and Ram Das by a registered sale deed dated 21.07.1933(Ext.1/c) in the name of Baikunth and one Sada sale deed dated 21.07.1933(Ext.B/3) in the name of Bhagwat Sharan Singh(father of the principal defendants).After the death of Deosaran, Ramdayal wanted to grab his property and deny the right of his daughter and Natis which was obstructed by the defendants. Aggrieved thereby a bogus & collusive Baibeyana deed dated 04.11.1953(Ext.11) was got executed by Ramsakhi Devi in favour of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh(defendant no.20) claiming herself to be the daughter of Rajaram. It was followed by another collusive registered sale deed dated 18.02.1954 (Ext.1/a) executed by Sarbanand Singh in favour of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh who subsequently transferred part thereof measuring 2.93 acres to the plaintiff and defendant no.24 by a registered sale deed 09.01.1956 (Ext. 1/b).
The learned trial court on a consideration of the rival pleadings formulated as many as 11 issues and permitted the parties to lead evidence. On an appraisal of the evidence on record the trial court held that Baikunath(vendee of Ext.1/c) was the Bhagina of Munglal(defendant no.10) and was Benamidar. It is for this reasons that Sumeshwar Singh (D.W.10) had executed „Ladavinama‟ dated 05.12.1956 (Ext.G) in respect 7 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 7 / 16 of the suit land covered by sale deed (Ext.1/c). Ramsakhi was not the daughter of Rajaram but was the daughter of Nandu and sister of Ramdayal (defendant no.19). The sale deed executed by Sarbanand(husband of Ramsakhi) dated 18.02.1954 (Ext.1/a) in favour of Laliteshwar Pd. Singh and the sale deed dated 09.01. 1956 (Ext.1/b) executed by Laliteshwar Pd. Singh in favour of the plaintiffs were bogus and fraudulent documents which were executed without consideration and with the sole purpose of creating evidence. The sale deed dated 21.07.1933 (Ext.1/c) executed by Ramdayal and others in favour of Baikunth was genuine and operative document whereby the contesting defendant had purchased the sale deed in the name of Baikunth. The „Ladavinama‟ dated 05.12.1956 (Ext. G) executed by sons of Baikunth was not a collusive and showy document. The plaintiffs had no title to the suit land and their vendor(defendant no.20) also did not derive only title inasmuch as Ramsakhi and her husband Sarbanand had no concern with the lands of Rajaram and the suit land belonging to Rajaram devolved on Ramdayal, Ramdas and Deosaran who even otherwise acquired title by adverse possession. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Dissatisfied therewith the plaintiffs filed appeal. The appellate court having re-appraised the evidence on record in the light of the submission of the appellants formulated the following three points which called for consideration/adjudication:-
1. Whether Raja Ram died leaving behind a daughter named Ram Sakhi.
2. Whether plaintiff‟s story of possession and dispossession is true.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their title to and recovery of possession over the
8 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 8 / 16 suit lands and mesne profit.
After having independently surveyed the evidence on record both oral and documentary the appellate court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove satisfactorily by cogent and reliable evidence that Rajaram died leaving behind a daughter called Ramsakhi who came in possession over his property after the death of his widow. The plaintiffs further failed to prove that any person named Ramsakhi or Laliteshwar Pd. Singh was ever in possession of the property left behind by Rajaram from where they were dispossessed. The evidence adduced by the contesting defendant(s) was found inspiring confidence to hold that Rajaram died leaving behind no daughter called Ramsakhi and after the death of his widow his agnate(s) came in possession of the suit property and dealt with the same in different ways at different time(s). The contesting defendants were also able to prove that by means of a registered sale deed (Ext.1/C) the suit land was sold in the Benami name of Baikunth for value. Accordingly all the points were answered against the plaintiffs and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. While admitting the appeal the following substantial question of law were framed:-
1. Whether the statement of Ram Sakhi deceased in the year 1953 in Exhibit 11, registered agreement of sale, stating her relationship with Rajaram is admissible and relevant under section 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act, Ram Sakhi having died and the said relationship was declared long before any dispute arose.
9 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 9 / 16
2. Whether non-consideration of Exhibit 11 by any one of the courts below has vitiated the finding as to the relationship of Ram Sakhi with Rajaram.
3. Whether the courts below were correct in interpreting section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act and rejecting the oral evidence particularly when the witnesses stated to have been acquainted with the conduct of parties in view of the decision reported in A.I.R. 1968 Patna 481.
4. Whether the 1933 sale deed by the agnatic relation of Rajaram in favour of Baikunth was operative and was contrary to the contention of that being Benami particularly when the custody of the document was with the plaintiffs and Baikunth having failed to establish passing of consideration.
Heard Mr. Kumar Uday Singh learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Birendra Kant Chaudhary who has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Before hearing could begin it was contended on behalf of the appellants that in addition to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission the appeal raises the following two additional substantial questions of law:-
(I) Whether the finding of fact with regard to relationship of Ramsaki with Nandu Singh, who according to the contesting defendants was her daughter, is vitiated because witnesses of the defendants who deposed on the issue of relationship of the parties in the case did not depose as required under section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such their evidence on point of relationship could not have been acted upon by the courts below?
10 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 10 / 16 (II) Whether the finding of the courts below that the plaintiff have failed to prove that Ramsakhi was daughter of Rajaram is perverse?
The appellants filed those additional substantial questions of law after serving a copy thereof on the counsel for the defendants/respondents.
I would first take up substantial question of law nos. 1 & 2 for consideration as they are, to some extent, interlinked. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant(s) that the court of appeal below had overlooked an important piece of evidence in the shape of Ext. 11 to hold against the plaintiff(s). Ext. 11 is the registered deed of agreement dated 04.11.1953 executed by one Ramsakhi in favour of defendant no.20 (vendor of the defendants) reciting therein her relationship with the Rajaram which was relevant and admissible under section 32(5) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short „the Act‟) as the recitals made therein satisfy the requirement of law. On going through Ext. 11 it is found that the executor thereof has only recited about the manner in which she acquired land without disclosing her relationship with the persons through whom she acquired the same. It has been vehemently argued that there being no dispute between the parties that the suit land originally belonged to Rajaram it could have been safely inferred that by reason of recital made by Ramsakhi in Ext. 11 she disclosed her relationship with Rajaram as his daughter. On scrutiny of Ext. 11 it is found that no such inter se relationship with Rajaram has been disclosed. The executor has merely stated that the suit land was acquired by her from her Naihar. It was 11 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 11 / 16 therefore incumbent upon the court to consider the point at issue in the light of the attending facts and circumstances of the case. Ext. 11 itself therefore was not crucial in clinching the issue. The appellate court has thus considered the entire evidence both oral and documentary to form its views on the point the parties were at variance. Both the questions, referred to above, are therefore answered against the appellants. It may be observed that the appellate court in paragraph 36 of the judgment taking stock of the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs noted that Sarbanand was one of the most important and material witnesses to say as to whether his wife was the daughter of Rajaram and whether she came in possession of his property after his death. Although summon was issued to him but he did not muster courage to take the witness box to swear and state in support of the plaintiffs‟ case that his wife was the daughter of Rajaram and came in possession of his property and continued until her death in 1959 and before that executed the deed of Baibeyana (Ext. 11). This was found a very suspicious circumstance to discredit the case put up by the plaintiffs.
This Court would now advert to the substantial question of law no.3 framed at the time of admission as well as the additional substantial question of law no. I which, in essence, raise identical or similar question.
Mr. Singh learned counsel for the appellants with his usual brilliance submitted that applying the legal test adumbrated in section 50 of the Act and the law laid down in AIR 1969 Patna 82 (Ganesh Narain Singh vs. Jadunandan Singh), the court of appeal below has erroneously and/or illegally discarded the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,4,5 & 7 who all, in their respective depositions, narrated their acquaintance with the 12 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 12 / 16 family of Raksakhi Devi as they had occasion(s) to see the conduct of the members of her family. He has drawn attention of the Court to various paragraphs of depositions of P.W.1 (paragraph 6 & 29), P.W. 2 (paragraph 1,5,9, & 10), P.W. 4 (paragraph 1 & 5), P.W. 5 (paragraph 1 and 2), P.W. 6 (paragraph 1 and 5) and P.W. 7 (Paragraph 1,2 & 3) to contend that they all have deposed the instances to gather knowledge or acquaintance with the family of Ramsakhi or his father and had occasion(s) to see their conduct in ordinary course of life. In the same vein, the counsel criticized the judgment under appeal on the ground that the court below illegally relied on oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants although their depositions insofar as establishment of inter se relationships is concerned which were not strictly in adherence to section 50 of the Act.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the court of appeal below has critically evaluated the testimony of both the parties on the touchstone of established legal parameter and found the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants more truthful. He further submitted that these substantial questions of law are essentially questions of fact relating to appreciation of evidence and conclusion(s) derived therefrom. It is not a case where the appellate court blindly accepted all the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants and rejected the oral evidence of the plaintiffs on flimsy ground. A bare perusal of the judgment under appeal would show that the appellate court while appreciating the oral evidence of the parties was fully conscious of the law contained in section 50 of the Act.
Section 50 of the Act reads as under:-
13 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 13 / 16 "50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact:
Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions under sections, 494, 495,497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860."
On plain reading of section 50 of the Act it is found that in a case where the court below has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the opinion expressed by the conduct as to the existence of relationship is a relevant fact. Such person whose opinion expressed by conduct must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise as has special means of knowledge of such relationship.
It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiffs‟ witnesses, referred to above, have disclosed the circumstances/facts which provided them special means of knowledge as to the relationship of Ramsakhi with Rajaram, yet the appellate court discarded their evidence which has turned the table against the plaintiffs. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the courts below have critically analyzed their evidence taking into account the relationship thereof as provided under section 50 of the Act and noticing the contradiction(s) and/or inconsistency in their respective depositions having regard to the statements which they made during their cross-examination found them not trustworthy on the point/issue. Adequate reasons have been assigned 14 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 14 / 16 therefor. In Ganesh Narain Singh (supra), this Court relying on AIR 1959 SC 914 and AIR 1943 CAL 76 held that oral evidence can be given with regard to the relationship by a person who is not a member of the family but the court has to form its opinion taking into account the entire evidence including what they deposed in the cross examination. It thus infers therefrom that the court is under bounden duty to appreciate the evidence in its entirety. It has neither been argued nor shown on behalf of the appellants that the deposition of the plaintiffs‟ witnesses have been rejected only on the ground that they did not belong to the family of Ramsakhi or Rajaram. It is always open to the counsel for the otherside to cross-
examine the witnesses to test his special means of knowledge. On going through the judgment it is seen that the court of appeal below while considering the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs has taken into consideration the entire evidence of the witnesses and found their evidence(s) deficient and/or not convincing to establish the relationship of Ramsakhi with Rajaram. This Court would further note that these questions pristinely fall in the realm of appreciation of evidence and conclusions derived therefrom. Identical criticism has been made on the appreciation of oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants. On perusal of the judgment under appeal it appears that the court has not accepted the oral evidence of D.W. in its entirety. Keeping in focus the mandate of law contained in section 50 of the Act some of the oral evidence(s) adduced on behalf of the defendants have been rejected whereas rest have been accepted as trustworthy to establish the case of the defendant that Ramsakhi was not the daughter of Rajaram.
In the case of Govind Singh & Ors. Vs. Balindra Singh & 15 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 15 / 16 Ors. 2014 (3) PLJR 627, this Court relying on AIR 1963 SC 1633 held as under in paragraph 13:-
"In the case of Madamanchi Ramappa vs. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that the admissibility of evidence is no doubt a point of law but once it is shown that the evidence on which Courts of fact have acted was admissible and relevant, it is not open to a party feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Courts of fact to contend before the High Court in Second Appeal that the said evidence is not sufficient to justify the findings of fact in question. It has been always recognized that the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to support a finding of fact is a matter for decision of the Court of facts and cannot be agitated in second appeal. In my opinion, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel that some of the evidences have not been considered by the lower appellate court is concerned, is not at all a substantial question of law." One of the relevant circumstances noted by the court below is that the husband of Ramsakhi namely Sarbanand did not muster courage to take the witness box and depose that his wife was none else but the daughter of Rajaram. Both the substantial questions of law under reference are therefore answered against the appellants.
Additional substantial question of law No. II is in fact is dependent on the answer to the substantial questions of law formulated, considered and answered hereinabove. Conscious of the aforesaid fact, the counsel for the appellants has addressed the Court on the questions of law which have already been considered and answered hereinabove. The 16 Patna High Court SA No.342 of 1981 dt.25-11-2014 16 / 16 discussions made above incline me to answer the present questions of law in negative. The judgment under appeal is based on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary and they have not been shown to be perverse or wholly illogical and/or devoid of reasonings. The substantial question of law is, therefore, answered accordingly.
Substantial question of law no.4 framed at the time of admission of the appeal has not seriously been canvassed by the appellant fairly conceding that the said substantial question of law will take a back seat if other substantial questions of law are decided against the appellants. Having answered the aforesaid substantial question of law against the appellants, the present substantial question of law delves into insignificance as the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants stands decided against them. This Court therefore does not feel the necessity to consider the same.
In the result, this Court finds no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
No cost(s).
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-
U