Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. I now come to the documentary evidence which, in my opinion, establishes the plaintiff's case beyond reasonable doubt. The plaintiff relies upon three documents Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. Exhibit 1 is a registered hibba of 1851 executed by Bibi Sonia in favour of Nawabunnissa. By this document Musammat Sonia purported to make a gift of 4 1/2 annas share out of 6-annas of Mouza Rampore Debor and the northern half of a large pucca house facing east with the tilfed thatched houses attached thereto" to Bibi Nawabunnissa her "daughter's eldest daughter." There can be no doubt at all as to the genuineness of this document and it follows from this document that Nawabunnissa was the eldest daughter of Bibi Sonia's daughter. The document establishes beyond doubt that Nawabunnissa is the grand-daughter of Sonia but it does not, in my opinion, establish that she is the daughter of Fazalunnissa. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that as it is not suggested that Ameeiunnissa had more than one daughter and as it is admitted that Fazalunnissa had more than one daughter the description of Nawabunnissa as Bibi Sonia's daughter's eldest daughter is consistent only with the case that Bibi Nwabtmnissa was a daughter of Fazaknnissa and not the daughter of Ameerunnissa. J. he argument, in my opinion, is a fallacious one. If we accept the evidence, adduced on behalf of the defendants, Nawabunnissa the only daughter of Ameerunnissa. But if we reject that evidence, then we have no evidence at all to establish that Ameerunnissa had no daughter at all. I am, therefore, unable to find on this document that Nawabunnissa was a daughter of Fazalunnissa, but the document, taken with the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and the admission made by D.W. No. 9, establishes, in my opinion, that Nawabunnissa was the daughter of Fazalunnissa and, therefore, a sister of Asmatunnissa. The next document is Exhibit 3, a kabala, dated the 22nd November 1851 executed by Asrat Ali in favour of Nawabunnissa and others. The only importance of this document is that it shows that Bibi Amart was dead at the date when this document was executed. The learned Subordiate Judge says that the assertion that Bibi Aman was dead at the date of the execution of this document "makes it a physical impossibility of the plaintiff having been born of her, aged now, as she is, about 64 years." The document, therefore, is valuable as discrediting the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff is the daughter of Bibi Aman and not the daughter of Nawabunnissa. I will presently consider the case whether the document is a genuine one and whether it has been properly admitted in evidence. The next document is Exhibit 2, a deed of gift executed by Nawabuntiissa in favour of the plaintiff and her brother Saukhat Hussain. It will be remembered that by Exhibit 1 Bibi Sonia made a gift of 41/2-annas share out of 16-annas of Mouza Rampore to Nawabunnisa and that by Exhibit 3 Asrat Ali made a gift of certain properties to Nawabunnissa. By the deed of gift which Nawabunnissa is alleged to have executed on the 12th July 185 S she purported to convey to her daughter, the plaintiff, and to her son Saukhat Hussain all the properties which she received by Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3. The document, if genuine, establishes beyond doubt that the plaintiff is the daughter of Nawbunnissa. The first question that arises for our consideration is, whether these documents were properly admitted in evidence by the learned Subordinate Judge. They are undoubtedly ancient documents and were admitted as such by the Court below. The plaintiff produced these documents in the course of her evidence, on commission. His evidence is that she got these documents from Mamtaz Hussain, her step-brother, and that they were in her custody until she made them over to her husband for being filed in Court. We have to consider whether the plaintiff has proved proper custody of these documents. Now, Exhibit 3 was a document executed by Asrat Ali in favour of his wife Nawabunnissa and certain other persons and Exhibit 2 was a document executed by Nawabunnissa in favour of the plaintiff. It is not unreasonable to suppose that these documents would remain with Asrat Ali and that on his death they would pass to Mamtaz, his son. The plaintiff swears that Mamtaz Hussain made over these documents to her and that they were all along in her custody until she made them over to her husband, Enayet Ali, who in his turn made them over to the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 for being filed in Court. This was her evidence on commission, and on, the documents being tendered, they were objected to on the grounds, first, that the witness being illiterate could not possibly identify the documents, and, secondly, that continuous custody of the documents to the time of their being filed in Court, was not proved. Now, the Commissioner for taking evidence had, of course, no power to decide on the admissibility of the documents and it was necessary, therefore, for the defendants to object to the admissibility of the documents in Court if they had any objection to their being taken in evidence. The record, however, shows that these documents were marked by the learned Subordinate Judge without any objection. It is now urged before us that Enayet Ali should have been called to prove that he received these identical documents from the plaintiff and that he made them over to plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. The argument is not without force; but it is to be remembered that the defendants did not object to the documents being marked as Exhibits in Court. Bad they put forward their objection in Court it would have been open to the plaintiff to call Enayat Ali as a witness. We are informed that Enayet Ali is now dead and it is impossible for the plaintiff to call him now. In my opinion, the objection being to the mode of proof and not to the relevancy of the documents, it is impossible for us to reject the documents at this stage on the ground that the plaintiff did not examine Enayet Ali as a witness on her behalf. The question of the mode of proof is a question of procedure and is capable of being waived by a party. Since the question of the admissibility of these documents was not raised before the learned Subordinate Judge by the defendants, we 1 must assume that they waived their objection to the mode of proof adopted by the plaintiff. I hold that it is not open to the defendants now to raise the question of the proper proof of these documents.