PERIASAMI KACHIRAYAR Vs. VARADAPPA KACHIRAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law argued in this second appeal is whether the recital in a will that the property dealt with thereunder is the property of the testator is relevant evidence under the Evidence Act.

(2.) Mr. Veeraraghavan contends that it is not, and relies on the decision in Satindra Kumar v. Krishna Kumari, 36 I. C. 882 : (A. I. R. (4) 1917 Cal. 805), a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court. That case related to a suit for possession of land as Brahmottar in which there was a will produced by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff containing a recital of Brabmottar title. It was held that the will was inadmissible under Section 32(1) read with Section 13 (a), (Evidence Act). There is to be found in that judgment no reasoning in support of the conclusion beyond what has just been stated.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants seeks to justify that decision on the analogy of the decision in Gujjalal v. Fattehlal, 6 cal. 171): (6 C. L. R. 439) in which it was held that it would be a misapplication of the term "transaction" to hold that the decision of a Court of justice is, within Section 13(a)), Evidence Act, a transaction which, to use the language of Garth C. J.