1966 (8) TMI 67 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules on estate share entitlement & property claims in landmark case.

BASANT SINGH Versus JANKI SINGH

The Supreme Court determined that Ramyad Singh died in 1939, entitling Bhagwano Kunwar to a share in the joint estate. The Court upheld the admissibility ... - Issues:1. Date of death of Ramyad Singh - 1936 or 19392. Admissibility of admission in a prior pleading in the current suit3. Interpretation of evidence regarding the date of death of Ramyad Singh4. Rights of the appellant as an alienee of specific property on partitionDetailed Analysis:1. The main issue in the case revolved around determining the date of death of Ramyad Singh, whether it was in 1936 or 1939. The judgment highlighted that if Ramyad Singh died in 1936, the widow, Bhagwano Kunwar, would only be entitled to maintenance, but if he died in 1939, she would be entitled to an eight annas share in the joint estate under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. The High Court accepted the defendants' contention that Ramyad Singh died in 1936, leading to the dismissal of the suit. However, the Supreme Court, after a thorough analysis of the evidence, concluded that Ramyad Singh died in 1939, affirming Bhagwano Kunwar's entitlement to the share and upholding the trial court's decree.2. The judgment delved into the admissibility of an admission made by the defendants in a prior pleading regarding the date of death of Ramyad Singh. The High Court had ruled that Bhagwano Kunwar could not rely on this admission as it was not accepted in its entirety. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that all statements in the pleading are admissible as evidence, even if not all are accepted as correct. The Court held that the admission regarding the date of death must be considered in favor of Bhagwano Kunwar, supporting her claim.3. The interpretation of evidence regarding the date of death of Ramyad Singh was crucial in the case. Various witnesses provided testimony, with discrepancies noted in their statements. The Court analyzed the rent receipts and witness testimonies to ascertain the actual date of death. Ultimately, the Court rejected the defendants' testimonies, finding them unreliable and holding that Ramyad Singh indeed died in 1939 based on the evidence presented by Bhagwano Kunwar and her witnesses.4. Lastly, the judgment addressed the rights of the appellant, who had purchased land from Bhagwano Kunwar during the proceedings. The Court clarified that the appellant, as an alienee of specific property, could claim rights only to the purchased land on a general partition of the undivided properties. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's decree, and directed the trial court to decree in favor of the appellant for the specific land purchased from Bhagwano Kunwar, ensuring separate possession of the allotted lands.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment resolved the issues surrounding the date of death of Ramyad Singh, upheld the admissibility of prior admissions, interpreted the evidence to establish the date of death, and clarified the rights of the appellant as an alienee on partition.