2002 (12) TMI 622 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision Dismissing Suit for Title and Possession

MAHILA BAJRANGI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. Versus BADRIBAL W/O JAGANNATH & ANR.

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court ... - Issues Involved:1. Declaration of title and recovery of possession2. Validity of marriage between Gopali and Gendilal3. Validity of adoption of Jagannath by Gendilal4. Plea of res judicata5. Admissibility and probative value of evidenceDetailed Analysis:Declaration of Title and Recovery of PossessionThe plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of a house property, claiming ownership through a gift deed executed by her mother, Gopali. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but a Single Judge of the High Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision and dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal.Validity of Marriage Between Gopali and GendilalThe plaintiff claimed that Gopali was married to Gendilal, making her the legitimate heir. The Trial Court found that Gopali was not legally married to Gendilal and thus could not transfer any property rights to the plaintiff. The Single Judge of the High Court, however, accepted the marriage based on certain statements and documents. The Division Bench, upon further appeal, held that there was no valid marriage between Gopali and Gendilal, thereby nullifying the plaintiff's claim.Validity of Adoption of Jagannath by GendilalJagannath claimed to be the adopted son of Gendilal. The Trial Court found in favor of Jagannath, stating that he and his heirs were in possession of the property. The Single Judge of the High Court disagreed, finding insufficient proof of adoption. The Division Bench upheld the Trial Court's finding, stating that there was no legal adoption of Jagannath by Gendilal.Plea of Res JudicataThe plaintiff raised the plea of res judicata for the first time during the final hearing, arguing that previous mutation proceedings should preclude the current dispute. The Court rejected this plea, stating that it was a mixed question of fact and law that should have been raised earlier. The Court also clarified that mutation proceedings do not have the status of judicial proceedings and cannot be used to assert res judicata in a subsequent civil suit.Admissibility and Probative Value of EvidenceThe plaintiff relied on various documents and statements from mutation proceedings to prove her claims. The Court analyzed the admissibility of these documents under Sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act. The Court found that these statements were self-serving and made after disputes had arisen, thus lacking independent corroboration. The Court also considered the probative value of school records describing Jagannath as Gendilal's son, which were made long before any dispute. The Trial Court and Division Bench found these records more credible, while the Single Judge had erred in treating the plaintiff's evidence as conclusive.ConclusionThe Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court found no valid marriage between Gopali and Gendilal, no legal adoption of Jagannath by Gendilal, and rejected the plea of res judicata. The Court also emphasized the importance of the probative value of evidence, supporting the findings of the Trial Court and Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.