KHEWNI Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by the defendant against an appellate judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge Mr. Sunder Lal dated the 11th February, 1953 confirming the decree of the trial Court and decreeing plaintiff's suit for declartion that Khewni is not his wedded wife and Mani Ram is not the son of Gopal by Khewni.

(2.) Mst. Khewni defendant No. 1 made an application under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained a maintenance order for herself and her son Mani Ram on the ground that she was the wife of the plaintiff and Mani Ram was their son. Both the Courts below have found that the marriage of Khewni with the plaintiff has not been proved and that it has not been proved that Main Ram is the son of Gopal, the plaintiff.

(3.) Mr. Roop Chand Chaudhary submits that the Senior Subordinate Judge has relied upon inadmissible evidence i.g., the report of the Phillaur expert as to the thumb impression on the back of Exhibit D. 3/3, an application purporting to have been made by Gopal and thumbmarked by him in which he is alleged to have stated to the rationing authorities that Khewni was his wife. This thumb-impression was found not to be that of Gopal. The report was not objected to in the trial Court nor was any ground taken in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge although he allowed this question to be raised. Mr. Justice Tek Chand in Dil Muhammad v. Sain Das, 100 IndCas 922, held that where a party has accepted a certificate of an expert without formal proof he cannot later on be allowed to contend that it is inadmissible in evidence for want of proof. That case applies to the facts of this case and therefore no objection can be raised on the ground of lack of formal proof of the report of the expert.