NATHU SINGH Vs. ISHAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are three appeals in this case in which the plaintiff landlords are the appellants. They represented that they were cosharers to the extent of a separate 10 annas odd interest. They joined their cosharer landlords as pro forma defendants. The learned Judge in the trial Court gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff landlords in a modified form but Mr. Allanson, the learned District Judge, dismissed their suit, because on the evidence before him he held that it was not a 10 annas interest to which the plaintiffs had a right but a 13 annas interest and therefore their action could not be maintained.

(2.) It is important to notice that the plaintiffs, whether their interest was 10 annas or 13 annas, alleged a separate collection and only in those circumstances could the action have been maintained in the form in which it was brought, that is to say, had there been no separate collection it would have been necessary to sue for the 16 annas, interest and divide the result between themselves and their cosharer landlords who as I have said were pro forma defendants. But as it is a separate collection which they alleged they were entitled to sue for their share provided they sued for that share not more and not less. It was also necessary to join as they did their cosharer landlords as pro forma defendants.

(3.) Now I come quite clearly to the view that Mr. Allanson was wrong in looking at Ex. 3 which was a plaint and another exhibit which was a deposition in a former suit. Judges of Subordinate Courts seem to disregard entirely or not to understand, which it is I do not know, the law of evidence. No Court is entitled to look a document of the kind of these two exhibits and say that a fact is proved or not proved. The law of evidence in this country which follows in this respect the law of England provides a method of procedure in dealing with documents of this kind. In both cases they were used to contradict the plain tiffs present case and the Evidence Act provides that this statement by which the contradiction is sought to be proved must be put to the witness and it quite clearly appears that in this case it was not.