SHRIKRISHNA NANDLALJI Vs. DHANNA LADAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal by the Defendant decree -holder arising from a suit filed by the Plaintiffs objectors under Order 21, Rule 63 in Execution Case No. 13 of 1946. An objection had been brought by Dhanna and Pusaji that cattle and house attached in the execution of the decree did not belong to the judgment -debtor, Gendi Bai but belonged to them. The objection about house was allowed but the objection about cattle was disallowed. Pusaji is the son -in -law of Gendi Bai the judgment -debtor and he with his brother Dhanna brought this suit for a declaration that cattle belonged to him. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the District Judge Mandleshwar in appeal reversed the finding and set aside the decree and decreed the suit. The Defendants have filed this second appeal against the decree and judgment of the District Judge.

(2.) AS the question involved in this second appeal is question of fact I am not inclined to interfere.

(3.) APPLYING this principle to the facts of this case I find that the trial Judge has measured the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs by a standard required only in criminal proceedings and has forgotten that there is a strong and marked difference as to the effect of the evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil cases, it cannot be said that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must necessarily go to the Defendant.