SAVITABEN Vs. DALAL RAMANLAL VRINDAVANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application an order of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umreth, rejecting the document, Ex. 15/1, as inadmissible in evidence is challenged. The learned Judge was inquiring into a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, C. P. Code in respect of property, which had been attached in 1958. The applicant put forth her claim to the same property under a will and also under Ex. 15/1. Ex. 15/1 was executed in favour of Dave Mayaram and the alleged will was executed in favour of the applicant by Dave Mayatam. In order to show that the testator had authority to make a wilt in her favour, the claimant relied on Ex. 15/1 to show that the testator had right to the properly in respect of which he was making a will. The learned Judge, however, thought that Ex. 15/1 was a deed of relinquishment of the right over property valued at more than Rs. 1,000/- and he thought that the document was therefore Inadmissible- in evidence.

(2.) If we look at the document, It is clear that It is not a deed of relinquishment. It refers to the fact that the maker of the document had demanded a partition and that he was in need of money for the marriage of his daughter. He agreed to the payment of Rs.3,000/- In lieu of the price of his one-half share In the said house. The document mentions that there was a family arrangement by which in lieu of the price of the one-half share in the said house, namely house bearing City Survey No. 4413-4417-4418, to which the executant of the document was entitled to, he accepted Rs. 3,000/. The document was dated 24-9-53, and the document mentions that the date of the family arrangement was 7-6-1953. The document is, therefore, not a document of relinquishment by which any right was relinquished. The document merely mentions the fact that about five months earlier, i.e., on 76- 1953, there was a family arrangement by which the executant relinquished his one-half share in the said house and accepted Rs. 3,000/-, in lieu of it. The document clearly, shows that the executant relinquished his right to the one-half share in the said house by the family arrangement, which was effected on 7-61953, and not by this document, which was executed on 24-9-1953. The document merely mentions the earlier fact that the executant had relinquished his share by family arrangement which was effected on 7-6-1953. The document is not therefore a document of relinquishment and does not require to be registered. The learned Judge was, therefore, wrong In the view he has taken regarding the admissibility in evidence of this document.

(3.) It Is true that the question relates to the admissibility in evidence of a certain document. But if the question relates to the admission In evidence of relevant farts, then the Court will not interfere in revision. But the question relates to the admission in evidence of a document, which lends to prove a fact in issue directly and upon Which the claimant bases her claim. Such a question would be a material question and any error regarding the admissibility in evidence of such a document would be a malarial Irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. But in the case of an error regarding the admission in evidence of a relevant document, which has only a bearing on the facts m Issue, and a document on which the claimant does not base the title to the property, this Court will not interfere in revision. We have, therefore, to distinguish between errors in regard to the admission in evidence of relevant facts and those In regard to a document which affects a fact in issue directly. If the errors relate to the latter type, then this Court will interfere in revision on the ground that they constitute a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction,