Natha Singh vs Smt. Kesar Kaur

H.S. Bedi, J.—One Sant Kaur widow of a Sardara Singh was the owner of the suit land measuring 76 Kanals 18 marlas having inherited the same from her husband. Sant Kaur died in the year 1972 and the mutation to her estate was sanctioned in favour of Natha Singh, defendant appellant son of Wadhawa Singh who was the real brother of Prem Singh father of Sardara Singh deceased. The Plaintiff - respondent Kesar Kaur claimed herself to be the daughter of Harnam Kaur deceased daughter of Prem Singh and claiming to be the preferential heir of Sant Kaur deceased, filed a suit against Natha Singh defendant - appellant for possession of the suit land. In the written statement filed by Natha Singh, it was denied that Sardara Singh aforesaid had any sister or that Kesar Kaur was the daughter of any such sister.

The following issues were framed :-

Whether the plaintiff is related to Sant Kaur deceased as alleged? if so, its effect ? O.D.P.

Relief-

The trial Court held that Kesar Kaur was related to Sardara Singh in the manner indicated and being a preferential heir was entitled to succeed to the suit property on the death of Sant Kaur. The suit was accordingly decreed. In the first appeal taken before the Additional District Judge. Kapurthala, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed. Hence the second appeal at the instance of the unsuccessful defendant Natha Singh.

It has been urged by Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants that the evidence of the Plaintiffs witnesses which had been relied upon by the Courts below was not relevant in the light of Sections 50 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act and as the collaterals of Sardara Singh and Sant Kaur deceased had appeared in favour of the defendant - appellant, the Courts below ought to have given more weight to their evidence, as they along had the special knowledge envisaged u/s 50. In support of this plea, reliance has been placed on Amar Singh Vs. Chhaju Singh and Another, As against this, Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that a second appeal could lie to the High Court only in terms of Section 100 of the CPC if a substantial question of law was involved and not otherwise, and as no such questions existed in this case, the appeal had no merit.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the appeal. Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act on which primary reliance has been placed by Mr. Mittal is reproduced below :-

"When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conducts, as to the existence of such relationship, if any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact."

An analysis of this section clearly indicates that when a particular relationship of one person to another is sought to be proved, the evidence of a person who may be a member of the family or otherwise who has special means of knowledge on the relationship is a relevant fact. Illustration (b) to Section 50 further clarifies that when a person is treated as a member of a family by other members of the family, is a relevant fact to prove the relationship. Mr. Mittals'' argument that as all the collaterals of the deceased Sardara Singh and Sant Kaur had appeared in favour of the appellant, they being the only persons who had the special knowledge of the relationship inter se between Kesar Kaur and Sant Kaur, is to my mind without any basis, as Section 50 does not make inadmissible the evidence of any person merely because he does not happen to be related to the party claiming to prove that relationship. All that Section 50 requires is that the person appearing as a witness has special means of knowledge on the subject and that knowledge may arise from being a member of the family or otherwise. As a matter of fact, the judgment cited by Mr. Mittal on this aspect goes against it. Examined in the light of the above it is apparent that the witnesses who gave evidence in favour of the Plaintiff - respondent Kesar Kaur did have special knowledge about the relationship inter se Kesar Kaur and Sant Kaur and Sardara Singh. It is apparent from a reading thereof that Kesar Kaur was being treated as a grand daughter by Sant Kaur whereas Kesar Kaur was treating Sant Kaur as her aunt.

There is yet another circumstances which goes against the appellants. It is the admitted case of the parties that there was no evidence or even a suggestion thrown to the Plaintiffs witnesses to indicate the parentage of Kesar Kaur in the light of the fact that her relationship with Sant Kaur had been denied. It is also to be borne in mind as has been argued by Mr. Bajwa, that a second appeal to the High Court would be only on a substantial question of law. No such question of law is discernable in the present appeal, as only questions of fact had been raised and the argument has proceeded on the basis that a re-appraisal of the evidence was required.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to Costs.