Section 32 Evidence: pre-dispute plaint admitted to prove relationship, while the alleged will failed for lack of capacity and due execution.

A deceased litigant's pre-dispute plaint was treated as a statement admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act because it concerned family relationship and the maker had special means of knowledge; it was also proved to be her own document. That evidence supported the claim that the plaintiffs were the sons and heirs of Munir Khan, and the factual finding on heirship was not disturbed in second appeal. The alleged will failed because the surrounding circumstances showed lack of due execution and testamentary capacity, including old age, illness, absence of independent advice, and apparent lack of understanding of the document's contents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint filed by the deceased in an earlier suit was admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act as a statement relating to family relationship made before the present dispute arose; (ii) whether the plaintiffs had proved that they were the sons and heirs of Munir Khan and whether the alleged will was proved to be valid.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint filed by the deceased in an earlier suit was admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act as a statement relating to family relationship made before the present dispute arose.

Analysis: A statement in a plaint filed by a deceased litigant was treated as a statement within the meaning of section 32. The statement related to the existence of relationship and was made before the dispute in the present suit arose. The deceased was held to have special means of knowledge of the family relationship, and the plaint was also proved to be her own document by evidence accepted below.

Conclusion: The plaint was admissible and could be relied upon as evidence of relationship.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs had proved that they were the sons and heirs of Munir Khan and whether the alleged will was proved to be valid.

Analysis: The admissible plaint supported the plaintiffs' case that they were described as the sons of Munir Khan in earlier proceedings, and the lower appellate court's factual finding on heirship was based on legal evidence and ought not to have been interfered with in second appeal. On the will, the surrounding circumstances showed that the testatrix was old, ill, without independent advice, and did not understand the contents of the document, so due execution and testamentary capacity were not established.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to be treated as heirs, and the alleged will was not proved to be valid.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court restored the decree of the lower appellate court after accepting the plaintiffs' title and rejecting the will relied on by the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: A deceased person's pre-dispute statement in a plaint is admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act when it concerns relationship and the maker had special means of knowledge; a second appellate court should not disturb a factual finding supported by legal evidence.

---