Writ application under Article 226 challenging rejection of petitioners' request to lead a 1925 sale deed as evidence. Court set aside impugned order allowing evidence. Plaintiffs may challenge evidence during trial.
Order dated 5.6.2009 set aside; trial court to admit sale deed dated 14.8.1925 as evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4931 of 2012
======================================================
All minor sons of Tunni Singh under the guardianship of his father tunni Singh, All resident of village-More, Police Station-Mokama, DistrictPatna
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Dani Singh son of Late Jageshwar Singh
Both minor sons of Guddu Singh under the guardanship of his father Guddu Singh, All resident of village-More, P.S. Mokama, District-Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER
3 12-10-2012 Heard Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the order dated 5.6.2009 passed by learned Munsif, Barh in Title Suit No. 28 of 2002 whereby the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4931 of 2012 (3) dt.12-10-2012
2 / 3
application filed by the petitioners dated 24.2.2009 seeking to lead a sale deed dated 14.8.1925 by way of evidence, has been rejected. The suit in question is in the nature of an eviction suit seeking eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit property. Whereas the plaintiffs-respondents have set up their right, title and interest in the property by way of devolution, claiming to be the descendants from the nearest relative of the owner of the property, the defendants-petitioners have claimed title through purchase.
The only issue which falls for consideration before this Court is that whether the learned Court below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to lead the sale deed dated 14.8.1925 by way of evidence, has committed any error.
During the course of the proceedings, the written statement filed by the defendants-petitioners was produced by Mr. Kumar and at paragraph 13 thereof it is manifest that a question as to the devolution of property itself has been raised by the petitioners.
The sale deed in question dated 14.8.1925 has been sought to be led as evidence by the petitioners in support of the statement made in paragraph 13 of the written statement.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record as also the categorical statement
Patna High Court CWJC No.4931 of 2012 (3) dt.12-10-2012
3 / 3
made by the petitioners in paragraph 13 of the written statement as also the explanation given by the petitioners for leading the sale deed dated 14.8.1925, this Court is of the opinion that the defendants-petitioners ought to have been permitted to lead the same by way of evidence in the suit proceedings.
The reasons assigned by the learned trial Court to reject the prayer of the petitioner is pre-emptory as it is for the party leading the evidence, to establish the same during trial.
For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 5.6.2009 is set aside. The learned trial Court would be well advised to take the sale deed dated 14.8.1925 by way of the evidence in accordance with law.
The plaintiffs-respondents shall be at liberty to question the said evidence on its admissibility during the course of trial.
This writ application is allowed.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
Bibhash/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Munsif committed an error by rejecting the petitioners' prayer to lead a sale deed dated 14.8.1925 as evidence in an eviction suit.
Arvind Singh
Tunni Singh
Chintu Kumar
Mintu Kumar
Vikash Kumar
Dani Singh
Jyoti Saran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
