SHYAMSUNDAR PD GUPTA Vs. DARBHANGI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Second Appeal by defendants 1, 2 and 7 from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of 1 bigha 15 kathas 10 dhurs of land comprised in survey plot 944 appertaining to Khata 552 situate in village Brahmpura.

(2.) THE following short admitted pedigree will help in appreciating the respective cases of the parties :

(3.) PRIMA facie, this appeal is concluded by findings of fact. Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha appearing for the appellants, however, argued that even assuming that the disputed land belonged to Rajaram, Raghoji, and his son Prabhudayal had no exclusive title, as Rajaram had another daughter and another son, who is alive, and that the findings of the Courts below were vitiated because of non-consideration of Ext. A/6, which corroborated the fact of Rajaram having another daughter, and the evidence of P.W. 2 which showed that Rajaram had a son. Whether Rajaram had another issue or not is essentially a question of fact, and both the Courts have recorded a clear finding that Rajaram had no other issue than Binda, and there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusions reached by the Courts below. It cannot be urged legitimately that the evidence of P.W. 2 or Ext. A/6 could have made any difference to the conclusions recorded by the Courts below. It may be that on this point they did not accept the evidence of P.W. 6 and did not consider Ext. A/6 as conclusive. Any way, assume that the findings of the Courts below are erroneous, an erroneous finding of fact is not a ground for upsetting the decrees of the Courts below, unless it is unsupported by evidence or unreasonable and perverse in nature, which is not the case here. In Durga Chowdhrani v. Jawahir Singh, 17 Ind App 122, the Judicial Committee stated the law thus :