ULLA DEI Vs. MALLI BEWA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mesne profits on the following averments:

(2.) ON an analysis of the entire evidence the learned Subordinate Judge found that Plaintiff was not the daughter of Balkrushna. He accordingly dismissed the suit. The sole point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Plaintiff is the daughter of Balkrushna. There is no dispute that Ghana died sometimes near about 1952. The suit was filed in 1960. No question of adverse possession is involved in the suit. The learned advocates for the parties accepted the analysis that the result of the suit would depend upon the finding whether the Plaintiff is the daughter of Balkrushna.

(3.) IN support of the contention that the Plaintiff is the daughter of Balkrushna, Mr. Pal placed reliance on the evidence of p.ws.7 to 10 as satisfying the test under Section 50 of the Act. P.w.8 claims to be the barber of Plaintiff's family and deposed that he carried ceremonial nuta to Ghana and Juti on the occasion of the marriage of Ulla's daughter which took place in 1954. Juti and Ghana died before 1953. His statement that he carried ceremonial nuta to them in 1954 cannot be believed. We accordingly discard his evidence.