Baldeva vs Mahesh And Others

Heard on the question of admission.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are perverse and they have not appreciated the correct facts and evidence adduced by the parties. He further submits that the Courts below have not considered the defence taken by the present appellant/defendant that Baba, who died in the year 1987, had executed a Will in his favour and transferred his share to the defendant/appellant and as such, he became entitled to get 2/3rd share in the property of Kunja Dhobi.

However, from perusal of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, it is clear that the claim of the appellant/defendant has been denied by both the Courts considering the fact that in his evidence, he has admitted the fact that there was no such Will executed by Baba in his favour.

Considering the said fact and taking note of the fact that admission is the best piece of evidence, the Courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the appellant/defendant that he is entitled to get 2/3rd share in the property of Kunja Dhobi as Baba, who was son of Kunja Dhobi, executed a Will in favour of Baldev i.e. present appellant.

Considering the above, I do not find any infirmity and perversity in the findings given by both the Courts below decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.