Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It was the case of the Patanges that after the death of the mother of the plaintiff no.1 viz. Sulochana Dagadu Pujari, the Patanges opened her private box and found one original document in Modi script dated 1 st December, 1919. They obtained translation of the said Modi script in Marathi script and thereafter came to know that their right to take income of the Goddess Shree Rupa Bhavani had been clearly mentioned by way of agreement as such which had been styled as 'Halnama'.

78. Learned trial judge considered the document at Ex.86 i.e. Halnama which was relied upon by the Patanges. The said document was in Modi script.

Mr.Pandurang Ukranade was examined who stated on oath that the translation of the said document was true and correct. It is held by the learned trial court that Bhanudas Patange and Bandu Rama Shetty were having one half share in the income. There was no averment in respect of the right of the Ramanshetty after getting the said document. The learned trial judge considered the evidence of the said Pandurang Ukranade and held that after the end of the Navratra Mahotsav, the persons mentioned in the said document of 1919, Ramanshetty and Bhanudas Patange were counting the offerings and 1/4 th share was to be given to the Masares for their expenses incurred by them. The remaining amount was to be divided kvm SA148.16 between the Patanges and Ramanshetti. It is held that on scrutiny of evidence on record, it appears that the Patanges had not put their case as per the details disclosed from the document being Ex.86. Even after the receipt of the said document, the Patanges had not stated about the entire effect of the said document. The said document did not wholly corroborate the case put up by the Patanges. It is held that since the Patanges or his family members were having knowledge of the said document, it required them to seek relevance by pleading effective details disclosed from the said document. The Patanges had not pleaded averments in respect of right of Ramanshetti, Masares etc. as well as the details of the expenses and sought relief accordingly.

87. The first appellate Court thereafter considered the evidence of Pandurang Ukrande, who claimed that he could read and write Modi script and was able to translate Marathi into Modi. The evidence of the said witness was disputed by Masares on the ground that the said witness had not produced any document to show that he had obtained any decree in Modi language. He had no knowledge about the said document and was not able to show whether the said document was real or fake. The first appellate Court however, held that there was no reason to disbelieve the said witness because it was only question of transcription. Masares did not produce any translation from any other person who had obtained the decree in Modi script or he was acquainted with such script. It is held that insofar as question as to whether the translation would be sufficient proof of the contents of the document or not. It is held that if the translation of Exhibit 86 is compared with the compromise decree, which was passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1660 of 1933 and also with the written statement of Masares, it could be seen that the major portion of Exhibit 86 was observed by the parties. It is held that since the major portion of Exhibit 86 is proved, it could not be thrown away for rest of the period of Navratra Mahotsav.

123. The said Halnama was alleged to have been executed between Manikchand A. Shah, Bhanudas Patange, Bandu P. Ramanshetti and Ramappa A. Masare. The said document was in Modi script. Pandurang Ukrande, who had alleged to have translated the said document, did not have any authorized degree or certificate to translate the document in Modi script. There were various discrepancies in the translation of the said alleged Halnama made by the said Pandurang Ukrande. The said Pandurang Ukrande had not seen any of the parties to the said document while executing the said document. The learned trial Judge has after considering the oral evidence held that the said document was not a reliable document. It is held that the said document was pertaining to the rights of those four persons. There was probability that the other persons i.e. Ramanshetti and others may have possessed a copy of the said document. The said Ramanshetti never appeared in any proceedings. His ancestors never came forward in any of the proceedings occurred in respect of the said Goddess Shree Rupa Bhavani Temple. Patanges could not positively state about the existence of the said Ramanshetti as well as about his half share of income whether taken by the said Ramanshetti or not.