CHAMELI DEVI Vs. PUTTU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Law if silent, a judge ought not to lament the draftmen for having not provided for this or that or for having been guilty of some or other ambiguity. He should not fold his hands and sit silent. 'A judge should ask himself the question. If the makers of the Act had themselves come across this truck in the texture of it, how would they have straightened it out ? He must then do as they would have done. A judge mast not alter the material of which it is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases.' This echo of observations made by Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estate Ltd. v. Asher 1949 2 K.B. 481 must provide key to solution to a short subtle but substantial riddle raised in the case, no precedent on the point from the Apex Court and High Court of M. P. being available as stated at the Bar.

(2.) FACTS relevant and necessary for the purpose of decision in this appeal are not in controversy.

(3.) THEREAFTER , Jodhasingh filed the present suit seeking two declarations: that he be declared to be the legal representative and successor of late Bhagwan Kunwari, and that he be also declared to be the owner of the property left by late Bhagwan Kunwaii. In addition, recovery of possession was also prayed.