Nagina Singh vs Ramjanam Singh

Ross, J.—This is an appeal by the plaintiff the landlord of Mauza Saraya Basant, who sued for possession of a tenant''s holding on the ground that the tenant had died childless and that after his death his mother was in possession of the holding, and she died on the 31st December 1920, without heirs. The defendants claimed to be the reversioners of the last tenant Jangi Singh.

The question for decision is a pure question of fact, a question of pedigree. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit gave the plaintiff a decree. One of the considerations upon which he came to the conclusion that the defendants were not reversioners of Jangi Singh was that the first defendant, Chander Singh, in a previous deposition had made the following statement:

Ramadhin was the name of the father of Rachya Singh (that is the father of Jangi Singh). I cannot say how Ramadhin Singh was related to me.

In view of the ignorance which Chander Singh thereby showed of the pedigree, inasmuch as it was admitted that the father of Bachya Singh was Rampat Singh and not Ramadhin Singh, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that he could not have been a relation of the family. The learned District Judge in dealing with this matter took into evidence another certified copy of that deposition which differed from the copy that had been produced by the plaintiff at the trial and he also referred to the original record of the case and found that the copy produced by the plaintiff was incorrect and that what Chahder Singh had actually said was that Ramadhin was a cousin of the father of Ramrachya.

The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the learned District Judge erred in taking additional evidence which was not covered by Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P.C. In my opinion this is not a case in which fresh evidence was taken. The defendants had ascertained that the copy of the deposition produced by the plaintiff was erroneous and the learned District Judge referred to the original record of the case. The evidence was the same evidence, the only question being the correctness of the copy that had been produced at the trial. This, in my opinion, was not taking additional evidence and, even if it was, the incorrectness of the copy was certainly a sufficient cause for doing so.

The only other point taken was that the learned District Judge has not dealt properly with the question of the rent receipts. What he says is:

It will appear from what has been stated above that there are other holdings left by Rachya Singh for which the landlord has realized rent from the defendants.

and it is said that he has in this summary manner differed from the finding of the Subordinate Judge without discussing the evidence. Now the evidence which the Subordinate Judge discussed in the matter of the receipts was whether a receipt which purported to have been granted by the plaintiff was a genuine receipt or not; and he found against it. The point that the learned District Judge was concerned with was different. He refers to the evidence of the defence witness No. 1 who is the proprietor of Mauza Sarya Ratnakar and he finds on his evidence that since the death of the mother of Jangi Singh this proprietor had realized rent from Chander Singh and had granted receipts. This is the evidence which the learned District Judge is referring to in the passage that I have quoted. It was in evidence that another proprietor had taken rent from Chander Singh for other holdings which had been in possession of Jangi Singh. The question is not a question of estoppel because it does not relate to receipts granted by the plaintiff: it is a matter going to the pedigree as confirming the evidence of relationship between Chander Singh and Rachya Singh and his son Jangi Singh. There is no illegality in this part of the judgment.

Both points taken in appeal, therefore, fail and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Wort, J.

I agree.