Kalianji Ranchhod vs Bezanji Nassarwanji

Batchelor, J.—The question before us is whether the property in dispute was self-acquired property of Bhagwan. Ordinarily no doubt the presumption is that the property would be joint, but the learned Judge below has found that this presumption is displaced by the evidence in this particular case. The item of evidence upon which he mainly relies in support of his finding is purshottam''s attestation of the deed of gift of 1885 executed by that father Bhagwan in favour of Purshottam''s son Dullabh. In that deed, which is not a lengthy instrument, the property is more than once and emphatically described as the self-acquisition of Bhagwan. It is no doubt unquestionable law that a mere attestation by a relative does not necessarily import consent to the terms of the document attested : see Raj Lukhee Dabea v. Gokool Chunder Chowdhry (1869) 13 M.I.A. 209 But no one here seeks to contest this proposition of law; and what the learned Judge has done is that he has found that over and above the mere attestation there are circumstances in this case which call for the inference that Purshottam had knowledge of the contents of the sale deed. We agree with the Judge in this view. And having regard to the custom and usages of society in this country, we may safely say that it is extremely improbable that Purshottam would have attested this particular deed without knowledge of, and assent to, its contents. Oral evidence was not necessary to reinforce this conclusion, but we notice that there was some oral evidence in support of it on the record.

The result is that the decree under appeal is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed with costs.