Admissibility of deceased person's statement under evidence law outweighed later self-serving recitals in a succession dispute.

A statement by a deceased person was treated as admissible under Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act because it was against her proprietary interest and was shown, from surrounding circumstances, to have been made consciously. Later recitals in a gift deed carried less evidentiary value as self-serving material and did not displace the earlier statement. On the evidence as a whole, the son was held to have died after his father, so the appellant's succession case failed substantially. The decree was nevertheless modified to grant the appellant a half share in one specified item of property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement made by the widow in the earlier suit was admissible and reliable to prove that the son predeceased his father; (ii) whether, on the evidence, the son died before or after his father and what relief followed.

Issue (i): Whether the statement made by the widow in the earlier suit was admissible and reliable to prove that the son predeceased his father.

Analysis: The statement was treated as admissible under Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because it was made by a dead person and was against her proprietary interest. Knowledge of the adverse nature of the statement could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. The later recitals in the gift deed were not regarded as a direct contradiction of the earlier statement and were considered of lesser evidentiary value because they were made in a self-serving context. The earlier statement was held to carry great weight and to have been made consciously, not at the instance of another person.

Conclusion: The statement was admissible and entitled to substantial weight against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the evidence, the son died before or after his father and what relief followed.

Analysis: The surrounding circumstances relied on by the appellant were not sufficient to displace the earlier statement. On the evidence as a whole, the son was held to have died after his father, so the father's branch did not devolve in the manner contended for by the appellant. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to succeed in the suit, though the Court modified the result in respect of one item of property by allowing the appellant a half share in that item.

Conclusion: The son was held to have died after his father, and the appellant succeeded only to the limited extent of a half share in one item of property.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the main question of succession, but partial relief was granted on a specific item of property, leaving the decree substantially against the appellant with a limited modification.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement by a deceased person that is adverse to her proprietary interest is admissible under Section 32(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and when made consciously with knowledge of its adverse effect it may outweigh competing circumstantial evidence in determining the fact in issue.

---