FLORI RODRIQUES Vs. MAXIE JEROME DANIEL CABRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application raises an interesting question of law about the recent changes made in the provisions of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) THE question arises under the following circumstances : It appears that Maxine -respondent No. 1 and Daniel -respondent No. 3 are brothers and Mrs. Florid -petitioner No. 1 is their sister. House No. 94, Azad Road, Vile Parle, Bombay -57 is the subject -matter of dispute. Jerome Daniel Cabral was the father of Maxie, Daniel and Flori. It is the case of Maxie that the entire building was constructed by him from his own funds sometime in 1969 and that he was residing there with his parents and his mother died in 1970 and father in 1975.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate after perusal of these documents preferred to accept the version of Maxie to that of his sister Flori. Among other reasons for coming to that decision, he observed in para. 5 of his judgment that no doubt Luis Lawrence, the maternal uncle of the disputing parties, an elderly gentleman had come to support Hori but he was not prepared to place any reliance on the affidavit of Luis Lawrence inasmuch as he was contradicted by his son and daughter viz. Cecilia Luis Lawrence and Glen Lewis who had filed affidavits in support of Maxie. These two deponents, it appears from para. 5 of the judgment of the learned Magistrate, had contended that Luis Lawrence was suffering from arthritis and rheumatism and that he was totally disabled and that his brain was not functioning properly and that he was unable to understand the issues. The learned Magistrate observed that it is therefore improbable that that man viz. Luis Lawrence would come to support Flori and he, therefore, believed the contention of Maxie that the respondent No. 3 Daniel, had made him sign the affidavit taking advantage of his infirmity. That is how he discarded the evidence of Luis Lawrence.