AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (4) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arty plaintiffs claim to be the next reversioners and sue for possession along with the other plaintiffs who are purchasers of a 10 annas share. 3. The defence is of a two-fold character. The first is an attack on the plaintiffs' claim to be the next reversioners. That affects all the property in suit. The second is limited to the properties in Schedule III of the plaint. 4. The family possessed certain deities. On 5-11-1915 Mst. Chhemawati dedicated the Schedule III properties to these deities and they have been in possession through their shebaits ever since. The defendants claim that they are entitled to these properties in any event. The deities are the defendants first party and the fourth defendant is their shebait. He has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its details because, if the evidence on which the lower Courts rely is admissible, it is enough to prove the tree. The following portion of the tree is all that we need consider. We have omitted unnecessary names. 10. The following is the evidence of which the Courts below have acted. First, there is the 5th plaintiff Khantar Jha (P.W. 6). He proves the entire genealogy. It is true he has not got personal knowledge of every step in the sense that he knew each one of the persons named; that would be impossible as many died before he was born. But personal knowledge is not necessary in these cases. A member of the family can speak in the witness box of what he has been told and what he has learned about his own ancestors, provided what....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Panjis (palm leaf of genealogy) and add to them such fresh additions as occur in the family from time to time. They are considered important in this community because questions of marriage (who may marry whom) and relationship and caste turn on them. Statements about pedigree are not therefore lightly made in such cases. The weight to be attached to them may, in a given case, be nil; on the other hand, they may be regarded as important because a man in such a position would ordinarily hesitate before giving a false pedigree as so many unforeseen consequences of importance to him and his family may turn on it. But the question of weight is for the Courts of fact to determine; we are only concerned with the admissibility. 13. They can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese entries but we do know that they were written by the family Panjikars of the plaintiffs' family, that the entries were made by persons now dead, that they were made in properly kept genealogical records and that they come from proper custody. 17. First, there are Exs. 4 and 4(a). These are proved by Nirsoo Jha (P.W. 29). He does not know who dictated the entries but he says that Ex. 4 was written by Krishna putt Jha, the brother of his great grandfather, and Ex. 4(a) by his father. Both are dead. He also proves that the collection of Panjis from which Exs. 4 and 4(a) were taken contains entries in the hand of his father, grandfather, great grandfather and great granduncle. He also says that he saw Ex. 4(a) fifteen years before 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) (even if Section 32(6) does not apply) to prove the relationships in dispute and they afford independent corroboration of the 5th plaintiff's testimony. 19. Next comes Ex. 4 (b). This is proved by Lakchmi Narain Jha (P.W. 31), the son of the now blind Panjikar Raghunath Jha (P. W. 40). The witness says that the entries in Ex. 4 (b) are written by his grandfather Bansi Jha. He also tells us that his grandfather died long before the survey which was made in 1901 and that he himself first saw Ex. 4 (b) about fifteen years before 1944 when he was deposing, that is, in 1929. These entries were therefore made before the dispute arose (Section 32(6)) and are in any case admissible under Section 32(2). 20. It is to be noted that Ex. 4 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to the plaintiffs' appeal, Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1953. This relates to the Schedule III properties. They were purchased by Mst. Chhemawati and did not form part of the estate which came to her from her husband. As the reversioner can only claim property which belonged to the propositus, the burden is on the plaintiffs, to establish that these properties formed part of Naubat Lal's estate. There is no presumption that any particular property in the widow's hands is part of her husband's estate because a widow can have properties of her own. Therefore, he who claims must establish his right to it. It is admitted here that the widow purchased them out of the savings made by her from the income of her husband's estate ....