RAMNATH SINGH Vs. RAM BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS defendants' revision has been filed by Ram Nath Singh and others under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE respondents had filed a suit against the petitioners on the allegation that the parties belonged to the same family and that the plot Nos. 423, 424 and 425 in dis pute formed their joint tenancy in which the plaintiffs-respondents asserted half share. These plots were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and a compensation of Rs. 37.60 P. was awarded to and received by the defendants. According to the respondents-plaintiffs they were entitled to half of this compensation from the defendants-peti tioners and a decree for the same. It is not necessary for the present purpose to mention the point raised in defence. It is sufficient merely to say that the respondents' suit was decreed with cost. The defendants- petition ers' appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Allahabad by an order dated 21-8-69 upholding the trial court's finding that the disputed plots were joint tenancy of the parties and that the plaintiffs-respon dents were co-sharers in the land with the defendants-petitioners to the extent of half share. It is against this decision of the lower appellate Court that this revision is directed. One of the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioners Sri G. P. Bhargava, was that the lower appellate Court in coming to the conclusion that the disputed land was joint tenancy of the parties had taken into account inadmissible evidence viz. an award which was not registered although it was compulsorily registrable and was, therefore, inadmissible evidence even for collateral purposes. The lower appellate Court looked into the contents of this award for the col lateral purpose of finding out the nature of the defendants-petitioners' possession over the disputed land. It is submitted that this was illegal in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mst. Kripal Kaur v. Bachan Singh AIR 1958 SC 199 to the effect that:-

(3.) THERE is a catena of authorities of the Supreme Court in which this view has been followed on the interpretation of clause (c) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Proce dure, coming down to D. L. F. Housing and Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2324. In Paragraph 8 of the report of the case the Court made the following observations: