Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

48. The appellant has challenged the finding of the ld. trial court based on non filing of any complaint etc. to police is also not in the correct perspective and that the court also did not give due weight­age to the fact of appellant stepping into the Kedar Nath Vs. Sardul Singh RCA. No. 29/11 35 of 43 shoes of his father only after his death. The impugned judgment is self­speaking of the matter contained therein on this aspect. The non­filing of the compliant to police by the appellant's father or the appellant has been taken only as one of the circumstances while considering the conduct of a reasonable prudent person as to the course of action which he follows when his proprietary rights are at stake. Though the human conduct cannot be put into a strait­jacket and different persons may react differently even when placed under the same set of circumstances. The approach adopted by the ld. trial court on this aspect is only one facet of its inquiry. The ld. trial court has considered the entire set of circumstances to cross­check its findings and I do not see any perversity in this approach of the ld. trial court. This kind of reverse engineering is generally done as a scientific way of verifying if the conclusions drawn by one set of evidence are supported by other attendant circumstances/evidences. Thus the grouse of the appellant is not well­founded as the ld. trial court has considered it only as one of the circumstances and not as the only circumstance to throw Kedar Nath Vs. Sardul Singh RCA. No. 29/11 36 of 43 away the case of the appellant.