LAWS(PVC)-1939-4-62

RAM KESHAN CHAMAR Vs. RAMSOHAG CHAMAR

Decided On April 03, 1939
RAM KESHAN CHAMAR Appellant
V/S
RAMSOHAG CHAMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of an action in which they claimed that a certain deed of gift executed by defendant 3, (the widow of Ramrati Chamar) was binding upon the reversioner. The plaintiffs case was in the result dismissed on the main question, they not having satisfied the lower Appellate Court that they were the nearest reversioners. Very reluctantly do I interfere in such cases and it seems to me that it is impossible for me to interfere in the present case having regard to what happened. The plaintiffs had produced certain receipts which, they stated, established the relationship they set up. These receipts were produced at a late stage and rejected, both the trial and the Appellate Courts then saying that they had been introduced by a dodge-or tricks These receipts not having been admitted, they were put to one of the witnesses and the trial Court, while recognizing that they had been really rejected, considered them. The lower Appellate Court on the other hand rejected them for the-reason I have stated. Once the trial Court, had taken these receipts into consideration, it would be difficult to suggest that the Appellate Court could interfere with the decision of the trial Court.

(2.) The question which I have to consider: is whether in the circumstances the Appellate Court was right in its conclusion. Once having rejected the document, there was an end of the matter. The conduct of the trial Judge is a little difficult to explain; but the fact remains that he did take the receipts into consideration and did find that the plaintiffs had established their case with regard to the matter with which those documents were concerned. Considering this matter the trial Judge says: The receipts have all appearance of antiquity. The parties are illiterate chamars and I do not believe that they would go the length of fabricating. documents. The learned Judge in the Appellate Court makes this observation: Then the plaintiffs played a trick and got them, produced by Raghunandan by summoning him as a witness as observed by the learned Munsif. Those receipts have not been proved and they have been exhibited on proof of custody as documents more than 80 years old. But Raghunandan has not stated how he got hold of the receipts in the name of Dhanpat and his custody of the receipts has been falsified by their previous production by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Had I come to the conclusion that these receipts definitely established the relationship which they purported to establish, the view that I might take of the matter would be somewhat different. It is true that they purported to show that one person was the son of another, which was-the fact that they were produced to establish, but at the same time there was no clear evidence as to whether these persons were members of the family, nor, as pointed out by the learned Judge of the Appellate Court, was it established that the documents were produced from proper custody. It would be useless in those circumstances to send the case back in order that the learned Judge might come to the very same conclusion on which I shall rely. The j Judge having refused to accept the evidence in the first instance, he has no jurisdiction to take them again into consideration unless some explanation or reason could be given by the plaintiffs. But no attempt, as far as Lean see from the judgment, was made by the plaintiffs to do so.