MT BESAR KUAR Vs. RAMHIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal brought by plaintiffs from a decree of the learned subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur dismissing their claim for a declaration and recovery of possession of certain property.

(2.) The plaintiffs were the widows of one Shivaraj who died in the month of September 1934. They alleged that Shivaraj died in a state of separation and that they as his widows were entitled to possession of the property left by Shivaraj. The defendants were the male members of another branch of the family and they claimed that Shivaraj died in a state of jointness with them and, therefore, the plaintiffs had no right to possession of any property and that their only rights were to maintenance out of the joint family properties. The learned subordinate Judge eventually came to the conclusion that Shivaraj died in a state of jointness and therefore dismissed the plaintiffs claim in its entirety.

(3.) In this appeal the plaintiffs-appellants have urged that certain important documents were tendered by them in evidence in the Court below but were wrongly rejected by the learned subordinate Judge. These documents have been printed in a supplementary paper-book. The first document, which is printed at pp. 1 and 2 of that supplementary paper-book, is headed "Statement of the exclusive share of Babu Sheoraj Nandan Singh in mauza Dagar, 1927-28," and, on the face of it, the document appears to have been signed by Shivaraj and Harihar Prasad Singh who is defendant 2 in the suit. The other document is printed at pp. 3 to 10 of the supplementary paper-book and is called "Kurra Barawarda of village Madanpur." This document also appears to bear the signature of Shivaraj and Ramhit Singh, defendant 1 in this suit. Both the documents are papers connected with a partition, and the learned Judge was of opinion that they were not admissible in evidence by reason of the fact that they were not registered. He accordingly refused to admit them in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. Sir Sultan Ahmed who has appeared on behalf of the appellants concedes that these two documents cannot be admissible in evidence to prove an actual partition by metes and bounds or to prove what share was allotted to any particular person by such partition.