Family pedigree evidence and widow's savings: proved reversionary title, but dedicated properties remained separate from the husband's estate.

Family pedigree evidence is admissible where a witness speaks from independent family knowledge and not mere hearsay, and duly proved Panjikar entries made in the ordinary course may corroborate such testimony; on those principles, the plaintiffs' reversionary title was established. A widow was entitled to enjoy the income of her husband's estate and was not required to preserve savings for reversioners, but whether property acquired from those savings accreted to the husband's estate depended on intention. Because the widow's dedication of the Schedule III properties to family deities showed an intention to keep them separate, those properties remained her separate property and were not available to the reversioners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs had proved that they were the next reversioners by relying on the testimony of a family member and corroborative Panjis; (ii) Whether the Schedule III properties purchased by the widow formed part of her husband's estate or remained her separate property.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs had proved that they were the next reversioners by relying on the testimony of a family member and corroborative Panjis.

Analysis: A family member may depose to pedigree matters on the basis of knowledge acquired from family tradition, provided the statement represents his own independent opinion and not a mere repetition of others' hearsay. Such evidence is admissible, though its weight depends on the circumstances. The Panjis were also admissible: entries made in the ordinary course of the Panjikar's business, from proper custody, and proved to be ancient or otherwise connected with the family records, fell within the admissible categories of entries relating to statements of relevant facts and corroborated the oral evidence.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs' title as next reversioners was duly proved; this issue was decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue (ii): Whether the Schedule III properties purchased by the widow formed part of her husband's estate or remained her separate property.

Analysis: A Hindu widow was entitled to the income of her husband's estate and was not bound to preserve savings for the reversioners. Whether savings became an accretion to the husband's estate depended on intention. On the facts, the widow's dedication of the properties to the family deities showed an intention to keep them separate from the estate, and there was nothing to indicate an intention to blend them with the husband's property.

Conclusion: The Schedule III properties did not form part of the husband's estate and were not claimable by the reversioners; this issue was decided against the plaintiffs.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent finding on reversionary title was upheld, and the challenge to the Schedule III properties failed because they were treated as the widow's separate property, with both appeals dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Family pedigree evidence and duly proved genealogical records are admissible when they represent independent family knowledge or entries made in the ordinary course of a recognized genealogical practice, and property acquired from a widow's savings becomes part of the husband's estate only if the evidence shows an intention to blend it with that estate.

---