1989 (12) TMI 348 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court modifies judgment, dismisses suit after plaintiff's death.

Kalyan Singh Versus Chhoti and Ors.

Kalyan Singh Versus Chhoti and Ors. - 1990 AIR (SC) 396, 1989 Supp. (2) SCR 356, 1990 (1) SCC 266, 1989 (4) JT 439, 1989 (2) SCALE 1238 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the sale deed (Ex. 3) and will (Ex. 4).2. Whether the previous suit against Bhonrilal was a representative suit on behalf of the Darjee community.3. The implications of the previous judgments and decrees on the current suit.4. The legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim to the property.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Sale Deed (Ex. 3) and Will (Ex. 4):The High Court rejected both the sale deed (Ex. 3) and the will (Ex. 4), which were the foundation of Ganga Ram's title to the suit property. The sale deed was deemed inadmissible in evidence as it was neither a certified copy nor a copy made from the original by any mechanical process. The will was disregarded due to suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The court noted that the will excluded the testator's wife, which was unnatural and ran counter to societal values. Additionally, the will was not produced for many years, even though there were opportunities to do so. This raised doubts about its genuineness. The court emphasized that proving a will requires trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence, which was not provided in this case.2. Whether the Previous Suit Against Bhonrilal was a Representative Suit on Behalf of the Darjee Community:The court examined whether the previous suit against Bhonrilal was a representative suit on behalf of the Darjee community. It was argued that the suit was only on behalf of the 'Panchayat Darjian' and not the entire Darjee community. The trial court had not framed any issue on this controversy, and there was no evidence to support the contention that the suit was representative. The court concluded that in the absence of necessary material, determining the nature of the previous suit was unjustified. However, it noted that any member of a community could bring a suit to assert their right in community property without complying with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Implications of the Previous Judgments and Decrees on the Current Suit:The previous judgments and decrees, particularly the suit against Bhonrilal, played a significant role in the current case. The court noted that the suit against Bhonrilal was decreed, and his claim of adverse possession was negatived. The High Court's observation that the present suit was a fruitless exercise was sustained on the ground that the previous decree was still in operation. This meant that the current suit could not succeed as long as the previous decree stood.4. Legitimacy of the Plaintiff's Claim to the Property:The plaintiff's claim to the property was based on the sale deed (Ex. 3) and the will (Ex. 4). The court found that the sale deed was not admissible as secondary evidence, and the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory material to remove these suspicions. The court also noted that the plaintiff's testimony and the evidence of witnesses were far from satisfactory. The plaintiff's claim that he was the adopted son of Gaurilal was not supported by any reference in the will or other material. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim to the property was not legitimate.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the judgment and decree of the High Court. The judgment and decree of the trial court, as affirmed by the District Court, were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. No order as to costs was made since the original plaintiff had died, leaving behind his widow during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.