SMT RAMPEYARI KOER Vs. RAMDHANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's appeal and arises out of an action for a declaration that a certain property is the exclusive estate of one Dhanukdhari Prasad Singh, the plaintiff's father, and that the plaintiff is entitled to this property on the death of her mother Mt. Nagesar Kuer, and for possession.

(2.) The facts have been stated in detail by the learned Judge in the Court below and I do not propose to re-state them. Two questions arise before us in appeal, one is a question of fact and the other is a question of law. The question of fact is whether, as the plaintiff alleged, she was a minor at the time she executed the ekrarnama, and, incidentally, whether she understood the nature of her act in executing the document. The otherquestion is whether in the circumstances, assuming that the question which I have just indicated is decided against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is bound by that document. As to the age of the plaintiff the learned Judge in the Court below has referred in detail to the witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff and has come to the conclusion that their evidence is not to be accepted. The most important witness and the witness upon whom greatest reliance was placed by the plaintiff was witness 3, who is a revenue agent and who purports to remember the date of the plaintiff's birth. The learned Judge dismisses the evidence of this witness by stating that he did not impress him and making the further statement that he was of the opinion that he was a hired witness. Whether a statement of that kind is too harsh is not a matter for this Court, but it is sufficient to say that on the demeanour of the witness the learned Judge would not accept the evidence he gave. The other evidence was discredited for various reasons. The next witness is P.W. 4 who, the Judge says, was a stranger to the family. The witness following him was in the employment of the family for only two months and could not be relied upon. Then the learned Judge came to discuss the evidence of the plaintiff herself.

(3.) One of the facts which impressed the Judge against the evidence of the plaintiff herself was that the horoscope upon which the plaintiff purported to rely for the purposes of her own age was not produced. The plaintiff represented in this Court by Mr. Khurshed Husnain relied upon one of the defendants own witnesses Saheb Singh (witness 3 for the defendants). That witness stated in the course of cross-examination that the plaintiff was about ten or eleven years older than Earn Chander. Earn Chander was a party to the suit and filed his written statement on 22 February, 1934.