SANGRAM SINGH Vs. RAJAN BAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case an action was brought by Sangram Singh to recover possession of a mouzah called Bargaon against a lady of the name of Bajan Bahi and her son, Rajan Bahi being a niece of Parmode Singh, who was its last possessor; and the plaintiff sought to recover this mouzah by proving his descent through six generations from one Sadu Rai, from whom Parmode had been descended through some five generations.

(2.) WITHOUT determining whether or not if the plaintiff had proved his pedigree he would be entitled to succeed, their Lordships address themselves to the question whether he has proved it. He endeavoured to prove it in this way. Some oral evidence was called which may be dismissed with the observation that it went to the effect that he had performed the funeral rites of burning the body of Parmode, but would be very far from establishing such a title as he seeks to set up. His main evidence consisted of certain depositions of deceased persons which he contended were admissible in evidence. Those depositions had been taken in a proceeding which had been instituted in 1863 between the two widows of Parmode Singh on the one side, and one Deo Singh, a claimant, on the other, with reference to the settlement of this mouzah Bargaon, and they seem to have been taken with a view to the making up of what are called the wajib-ul-arz or village papers. The first of these is a deposition of one Harbilas, who was a mukhtar of these ladies.

(3.) IT has been objected that this mukhtar had no special means of knowledge, and therefore that he does not come within the description of persons mentioned in this section. It now her appears that he had any other knowledge than as mukhtar acting for these ladies. He is not shown to have been a member of the family, to have been intimately connected with it, or to have any special means of knowledge of the family concerns. Therefore, in their Lordships' opinion, he does not come within the description of a person having special means of knowledge. But further it appears from his deposition that he is making a statement of the case on the part of his clients rather than professing to speak from his own knowledge of facts. He begins his deposition in this way: "They (his clients) mean to show that the taluka of mouzah Bargaon was acquired by their ancestor Sadu Rai, and has now devolved on Mussamut Ladli Thakurani and Sawai Thakurani by reason of descent according to the genealogical tree," and so on. It appears to their Lordships, therefore, on the two grounds, first that he was not shown to have special knowledge, and, secondly, that he did not pretend to speak from his knowledge at all, that this deposition was not admissible.