LACHHMI AND OTHERS Vs. SILKA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHUB Ram son of Ram Sarup resident of village Garhibala tehsil and district Sonepat died issueless at Gurgaon on 16th April, 1965. Alleging themselves as agnates of the deceased, the plaintiffs got landed estate of the deceased mutated in their favour vide mutation No. 1654 decided on 28th May, 1972.

(2.) DECEASED Shub Ram was born Smt. Jailo from the loins of Ram Sarup. Plaintiff -respondents are brothers of Smt. Jailo aforesaid. Alleging themselves to be the mother's brothers of the deceased. Silak Ram, Hoshiara and Kali Ram filed against defendant -appellants, before the learned trial court, a suit for the recovery of possession of the land belonging to Shub Ram in villages Abashpur and Garhibala detailed in para 1 of the plaint. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court on 31st May, 1976. In appeal learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, affirmed the decision of the learned trial court on 19th December, 1977.

(3.) BOTH the contentions raised on behalf of defendant -appellants are wholly without merit. Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act reads, "When the Court has no form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact; Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of I860)." The essential requirement of the sections are; (1) there must be a case where the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion, expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact, (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship. None from out of Bhagwana D.W. 1, Ram Singh D.W. 2, Faqira D.W. 3, Siri Chand D.W 4 and Maha Singh D.W. 5 professes himself to be a member of the family of Ram Sarup father of Shub Ram nor claims to have any special means of knowledge of the birth of Shub Ram to Smt. Sukkdevi from the loins of Ram Sarup. In fact, depositions of all the five witnesses adduced by defendant -appellants is not worth the paper on which written and does not in any way add to the case set up by them at a belated stage through amendment of the written statement on 4th September 1975, more than three years after the institution of the suit on 18th July, 1972.