SONEY LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition three submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Firstly that the revisional court has patently erred in accepting the claim of Gajraj whose claim had not been recognised in the earlier litigation. The second contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners that admission contained in the pleadings in the earlier litigation cannot be relied upon subsequently by the contesting opposite parties. In this connection the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon the observations made in Ramabai Shrinwas Nadgir v. Government of Bombay : AIR 1941 Bom 144.

(2.) THE third contention raised on |behalf of the Petitioners that in view of the ruling reported in Smt. Krishnawati v. Sri. Hansraj : AIR 1974 SC 280 previous self -serving statements by a party in other proceedings cannot be used as substantive evidence in subsequent proceedings against that party.

(3.) AS regards the first contention it is noteworthy that the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has utterly failed to satisfy me that the claim of Gajraj was not recognised in the earlier litigation. It is ture that the claim of the Petitioners' transferor was accepted by the trial court in the earlier litigation, but on appeal by one of the Defendants that suit was dismissed. In that suit opposite party No. 2 Gajraj was a Defendant. Since he had not filed appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court, it has been contended that the judgment of the Trial Court became final against Gajraj. It has not been demonstrated to me that in earlier litigation Gajraj had any interest in the separate and specified property. Annexure '6' attached with the writ petition indicates that he had filed a written statement in the earlier litigation along with Dhani Ram and Natthu and had claimed sirdari right in the disputed land hence when that suit was dismissed, it is difficult to conceive that the ultimate judgment was against Gajraj or that the judgment of the Trial Court had become final against Gajraj. To my mind the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in this regard are totally devoid of merits.