RADHA KRISHEN Vs. KRISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit which gave rise to this appeal was brought by Radha Krishen (hereinafter called the appellant) for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Shankar Lal deceased and for delivery of possession of the property of Shankar Lal specified and described in the schedules to the plaint. Shankar Lal (who had no issue of his own) was the great-uncle of the appellant, who was a grandson of Shankar Lal's only brother Debi Sahai. Debi Sahai had two sons Hari Krishen and Sri Krishen. The appellant was the natural son of Hari Krishen, who had also two other natural sons by a wife whom he married after the death of the appellant's mother. The defendants to the suit were (1) Ganga Dei, the widow of Shankar Lal, (2) Sri Krishen and (3) and (4) the two other natural sons of Hari Krishen. Hari Krishen died in the year 1931. While the main issue in the suit was whether the appellant had been adopted by Shankar Lal, the decisive question in the case was, in their Lordships' opinion, whether a document dated 19 October 1924, and purporting to be a holograph will executed by Shankar Lal, and witnessed by four witnesses, is a genuine document or (as alleged by the respondent Sri Krishen) a forgery. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. He accepted the evidence given by and on behalf of the appellant, and held the document to be genuine and the adoption proved. The High Court rejected the evidence of the appellant's witnesses, and held that "no will was in fact executed by Shankar Lal in 1924" (i. e., that the document was a forgery) and that the adoption had not been proved. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The appellant has appealed to His Majesty in Council. Ganga Dei died pending the appeal.

(2.) There is no dispute that Shankar Lal had great affection for the appellant. He was in fact born in Shankar Lal's house in March 1917, and after the death of the appellant's mother in the year 1919 he was brought up and cared for by Shankar Lal and his wife Ganga Dei, the child's father having remarried. Further, it is common ground that Shankar Lal arranged the appellant's ear-boring ceremony in the year 1924, which was celebrated by a feast given by Shankar Lal in his own house. It is also common ground that on Shankar Lal's death in the mon January, 1932, his obsequies were performed by the appellant. Affirmative evidence of the fact of adoption by four witnesses, who said they were present at the ceremony, and whose evidence was unshaken in cross-examination, was accepted as reliable by the trial Judge. One of them identified a document as being in the handwriting of one Bagwati Prasad, who was a clerk in the employ of Shankar Lal. It was a list of persons to be invited to Shankar Lal's residence for 18 March 1924, "on the occasion of the adoption and ear-boring ceremonies of Radha Krishen." This list is in some cases signed by the guests invited, presumably to acknowledge receipt of the invitation conveyed to them orally. The trial Judge, in relying on this list, erroneously referred to it as being in the handwriting of Shankar Lal; but this error in no way affects its value as evidence, because it must obviously have been prepared by the clerk under the direction of Shankar Lal.

(3.) The High Court dismissed all this evidence (including the solemn fact that the appellant performed the obsequies) on two grounds, neither of which appears to their Lordships a justification for differing from the view adopted by the trial Judge, who had the overriding advantage of seeing the witnesses and observing their demeanour in chief and under cross-examination. They commented on the fact that no person who was a member of the family, or whose name was on the list or who was "a person of standing" was called by the appellant. This criticism appears of small weight in view of the fact that the witnesses who did testify to their presence at the ceremony of adoption were unshaken in cross-examination, and were accepted by the trial Judge as credible witnesses. Credibility in the witness-box is more valuable in assessing evidential values than kinship or "standing."