Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

When the conduct is of such a tenor, the Court only gets to a relevant piece of evidence, namely, 'the opinion of a person'. It still remains for the court to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to the 'factum probandum'--as to the relationship in question."
The combined effect of Sections 50 and 60 of the Act came up for consideration before their Lordships in Dolgobinda Paricha's case. A dispute arose in that case as to whether the plaintiffs who were respondents in the appeal were the sons of the daughters of Lokenath Paricha. It required further determination of the question whether Ahalya, Brindabati and Malabati were daughters of Lokenath Paricha or daughters of Baidyanath Misra. Satyanand was the last male owner of the property in dispute on whose death his mother Haripriya succeeded to the estate. Lokenath Paricha was the husband of Haripriya. Haripriya sold a portion of the property inherited by her and a suit was instituted by the reversioners of Lokenath Paricha challenging the alienation. This suit was decreed and the alienation declared to be without necessity and not binding on the reversioners after the death of Haripriya. Oral and documentary evidence was led to prove the alleged relationship of the plaintiffs and on a consideration of the same the subordinate judge reached the conclusion that they were proved to be sons of the daughters of Lokenath Parichha and on that finding the suit was decreed. The High Court affirmed the finding on appeal and an appeal to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by the High Court met with no success. Oral evidence about relationship consisted of the testimony of three witnesses, namely, Janardan Misra, Sushila Misrain and Dharanidhar Misra. The High Court relied only on the evidence of Dharanidhar Misra which it considered to be admissible but rejected that of the other two on the ground that it did not conform to the requirements of Section 50. The view taken by the High Court was that the depositors of the two witnesses, Janardan Misra and Sushila Misrain were "based upon their having heard the declarations of such members of the family as were their contemporaries or upon the tradition or reputation as to family descent handed down from generation to generation and recognised and adopted by the family generally. This may partly, if not wholly be based upon conduct within the meaning of Section 50, such as treating and recognising the mothers of the plaintiffs as Lokenath's daughters, and the plaintiffs as his daughters' sons. They, judged from their respective ages, could not be considered to have direct knowledge of the matters in issue." The learned Judge who delivered the judgment of the Court scanned the evidence of each witness closely and observed that "they have in no way deposed about such conduct of the members of the family of Lokenath as could be attributed to the knowledge or belief or consciousness of those who had special means of knowledge of the relationships or that the relationship was recognised and adopted by the family generally."

7. The tests as indicated above were applied by their Lordships to the statements of all the three witnesses, namely, Janardan Misra, Sushila Misrain and Dharanidhar Misra, in Dolgobinda Paricha's case, AIR 1959 SC 914 and the same were held to be admissible. Janardan Misra and Dharanidhar Misra were held to have special means of knowledge. Janardan Misra had said that he attended the marriage of Malabati, daughter of Lokenath, when Lokenath was living. He further said that he was present when the first two daughters of Malabati were married and also at the time of the Upanayan ceremonies of plaintiffs 1 and 2. According to this witness, Shyam Sundar Pujari, a son of a sister of Lokenath, acted as a maternal uncle at the time of the marriage of the eldest daughter of Malabati and Dayasagar Misra carried Radhika, second daughter of Malabati, at the time of her marriage. The evidence of the opinion of Janardan Misra as expressed by his conduct, namely, his attending the marriage of Malabati as daughter of Lokenath and his attending the marriages and Upanayan ceremonies of the grand-children of Lokenath, was held to confirm to the requirements of Section 50. It was observed that Janardan Misra could not be deemed to have attended the marriages and ceremonies as a casual invitee, but as a member of the family who was present since he believed that Malabati was a daughter of Lokenath and the others were grand-children of Lokenath with regard to whom he deposed in Court. Dharanidhar Misra was the maternal Uncle of Janardan Misra. He too had attended the marriages of Radhika and Sarjoo, and the "thread" ceremonies of Lakshminarayan and Nimai. He had also attended the "gansana" and marriage feasts of Mandhata's daughters. The attendance of the witness on these occasions was held to be evidence of a conduct expressive of his opinion. It was the conduct of the witnesses that was throughout being considered by their Lordships in judging the relevancy of the statements of those witnesses under Section 50. P. C. Pandit J., if it may be said with all respect, was, therefore, right in holding in Ajaib Singh's case, (1968) 70 Pun LR 83 (supra) that "it is the witness's opinion based on his own conduct--his outward or external behaviour towards the persons whose relationship was to be established--that would be relevant. The conduct must be of such a type that must show to the Court that the witness himself was convinced about the said relationship." The condition precedent to admissibility of such evidence, of course, is that the witness must have special means of knowledge with regard to the existence of the disputed relationship whether as a member of the family or otherwise.