Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Though the Assistant Judge framed as many as 30 issues, the District Judge was right in framing one issue as to whether the Appellant - Plaintiff had proved that the suit properties were owned by them. Since the Appellants are claiming claim on title to the suit properties, this is the main issue to be considered.

9. The case of the Appellants is based on a document styled as a gift-deed. Neither the Appellants nor the Respondents nor the learned Judge could read this script. It is stated to be of the year 1923. This gift-deed is admittedly in Modi script. The Appellants did not bother to provide translation. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that because the learned Judge did not follow modi script, the Suit could not have been dismissed. This submission is unfair to the learned Judge. When a Suit is filed based on a document in a language which is no longer in use and the Plaintiff wanted to assert its rights based on the document, it was the duty of the Appellants to produce translation. The Suit was instituted in the year 1977 and it was decided in the year 1979. The 7 SA629.93.sxw appeal was filed in the year 1982 and decided in the year 1991. Even after the finding rendered by the learned Civil Judge in the year 1979, the Appellants had 12 years to place the translation on record. Nothing is shown as to whether the appellants were restrained from placing the translation on record. The only conclusion can be drawn is that the Appellants avoided to place the translation on record as there was nothing in it in their favour, Both the Courts have rightly held that merely because the document was more than 30 years old and it was exhibited, it cannot be said that the contents were proved. It cannot be that a party comes to the Court for establishing its rights and the entire burden is upon the learned Judge to either learn the language or to direct the party to provide translation. If the Plaintiff does not choose to produce evidence, he cannot succeed. Therefore, I do not find any legal error committed by both the Courts below while deciding the issue on the gift-deed.