KISHANLAL Vs. SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals from the judgment of the Chief Court of the former State of Marwar, and have come up before us for disposal under Ordinance No. XL of 1949, and Ordinance No. XII of 1950.

(2.) WE may give a brief history of this litigation as that will help in understanding the questions involved in these appeals. One Ganesh was the jagirdar of village Malpuria. He died sometime in 1931, and a dispute arose as to the succession of his jagir. Two sets of claimants appeared on the scene. One set consisted of Mohanlal alone who claimed that he was entitled to the jagir of Malpuria on the ground that he was the adopted son of Ganesh. The other set consisted of Sohanlal and others who contended that Mohanlal was not entitled to the jagir on the ground that he was not in the line of the Murisala, and that they were entitled to the jagir as collaterals being in 'he line of Murisala These disputes were considered by the Revenue Minister of the former State of Marwar, and he ordered on the 15th of March, 1934, that the two parties should get their claims determined by a civil court. In the meantime, the jagir remained under the management of the State.

(3.) IT was then urged on behalf of the appellant that the respondents should not be allowed to raise the question of inadmissibility of these documents, as they did not take serious objection to their inadmissibility at the proper time. If they had done so, the appellant would have taken steps to produce admissible evidence. Reliance in this connection was placed on Sayeruddin Akonda vs. Samiruddin Akonda (1), Ramachandra Ayyar vs. Ranganayaki Ammal (2 ). In the Calcutta case, the question was whether a mortgage bond was admissiable in evidence against the appellant. The original was produced, and there was no objection taken to its admissibility at the proper stage. IT was held that as the document was per se not inadmissible, but had merely been improperly admitted in evidence, the objection to its improper admission could not be raised in appeal. The Madras case is about the admission of secondary evidence without objection.