A. 23 and A. 36 were scribed, executed and attested it observed that similar pens and inks to those which were used in Ex.
It however accepted the evidence of the attesting witnesses to the extent that they saw the deceased sign Ex.
A. 23 companyld be had at Tarabganj and therefore discarded the evidence of Hasinuddin that Ex.
A. 36 was number duly executed and attested, and 2 that the award which amounted to a family settlement was binding upon the parties.
It was after Uma Dutt Singh thus reached the Tarabganj registration office that it was alleged that both the documents Ex.
On 14 11 1933 three applications were made to the Revenue Court for reference to arbitration of the disputes between Girja and Gangotri Application Ex.
He had brought his ink pot and the pen with him and the fair draft was scribed by him and was also executed and duly attested by the deceased and the attesting witnesses in the same ink which was black ink.
The claim of Gangotri was accordingly allowed and the properties in question were held number to belong to Girja.
Gangotri tried to resile from the reference but ultimately the Board of Revenue held him bound by the reference.
At the time when he was scribing the fair draft of the deed of waqf he also saw Sant Bux scribing a fair draft of some document but he did number know what that document was.
A 23 it is impossible to believe that the will, Ex.
A. 23 but only deposed to the preparation and the scribing of the will, Ex.
As regards the difference in the inks with which Exs.
71 of 1938 were thereafter tried and heard and disposed of together, the learned advocates of the parties having agreed that the result of the suit should follow the result of the E. E. Act case The Special Judge found that the will was proved to have been duly executed and attested, that the reference to arbitration was made by Gangotri of his own free will and he companyld number withdraw therefrom, that the award was number vitiated by fraud or partiality of the arbitrators, that the award did number amount to a family settlement and that it number being registered companyld number be used in the Civil Court.
A 23 and Ex.
Following the said findings the Civil Judge decreed Suit No.
None of these witnesses was able to explain the circumstances under which the execution and attestation of the deed of waqf, Ex.
11 of 1936 and the other a title suit, being Regular Suit No.
The deceased admitted execution and companypletion of the said two documents and was identified before the Sub Registrar by two persons, one Mahadev Pershad and the other Nageshur.
Hasinuddin was a petition writer and usually carried his own ink pot and pen.
A 36 were in fact executed by the deceased and attested by them under the Bargad tree in the companypound of the registration office at Tarabganj.
In the written statement dated 21 5 1936 filed under Section 8 of the Act the ten annas share in the properties left by the deceased was shown as belonging to Girja and as liable for the satisfaction of his debts.
The Chief Court of Oudh on the other hand stressed the difference in the inks on the two documents, Ex.
that he was a witness who companyld be purchased and was got up for the purpose of putting forward a false story that Ex.
The said award shall be binding on the parties in the revenue and civil companyrts.
On 11 4 1936 Girja filed an application under Section 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, E. E. Act Case No.
Mahadeo Pershad and Nageshur appended their signatures under those of the Sub Registrar at the foot of the endorsement in regard to registration.
A. 36 and agree with the companyclusion reached by the Chief Court of Oudh that the attesting witnesses were number telling the truth when they gave the reason why the will was number signed and attested at Gonda.
A 36 was also in the same blue ink with which the document was scribed.
Girja resisted the suit mainly on two grounds, viz.,
58 by Gangotri under Section 203, U. P. Land Revenue Act Application Ex.
57 by Girja under Section 203 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and Joint application Ex.
The story which has been deposed to by Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh in regard to the execution and attestation of both the documents, Ex.
All these cases were companysolidated and the case with respect to the village Nagwa was treated as the main case.
That would explain the execution and attestation of the attesting witnesses in the same ink with which the fair draft of the will was scribed by Sant Bux.
The arbitrators published their award on 17 1 1934 in the terms following We decide that out of the entire property of Baleshwar Datt Singh, only ten annas share out of the entire villages be given to Bhaiya Girja Datt Singh and six annas to Bhaiya Gangotri Datt Singh.
were obviously telling a lie when they stated that both the documents, Ex.
In order to prove the due execution and attestation of the will Gangotri examined the two witnesses Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh.
We have ourselves seen the original documents Ex.
1 that the will Ex.
71 of 1938 in favour of Gangotri.
There is the further statement of both these witnesses that the documents Ex.
He thereupon applied to the Federal Court for special leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Chief Court of Oudh and by its orders dated 11 11 1948 the Federal Court granted special leave to appeal in both the matters.
Gangotri companytested these applications on the basis of the said alleged will.
Girja examined Hasinuddin, the scribe of the deed of waqf.
The theory as regards the lapse of memory is negatived by the details which have been given by these witnesses as to why both the documents had to be taken to Tarabganj for execution and attestation.
Bhagwati, J. These two appeals by special leave arise out of two separate proceedings, one under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, E. E. Act Case No.
A 36 also was number executed by the deceased and attested by Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh at the same time.
Girja preferred two appeals to the Chief Court of Oudh against these two decrees.
A. 23 on the other hand was scribed in black ink and the signatures of the deceased and the attesting witnesses Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh were also made in the same black ink.
A. 23 and Ex.
A. 23 was companyrect, the two attesting witnesses examined by Gangotri, viz.,
The evidence of Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh was that though both the documents had been scribed at Gonda they were number executed and attested at Gonda because Uma Dutt Singh, who was intended by the deceased to be an attesting witness to both the documents was number present in Gonda on 17 3 192 and therefore the deceased asked Badri Singh, who was at Gonda on that day to accompany him to Tarabganj and both the documents were executed by the deceased and were duly attested by the two attesting witnesses Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh under the Bargad tree in the companypound of the registration office at Tarabganj.
A. 23 was companypleted, signed and attested in his presence at Gonda might as well be true and companycluded that the attesting witnesses were number telling the truth when they gave the reason why the will, Ex.
A 23 was scribed by him and was executed by the deceased and attested by Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh in his presence at the house of Gur Charan Lal.
But the attesting witnesses would number have the will Ex.
A 36 was scribed by Sant Bux at Gonda, was executed by the deceased at Gonda and Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh also appended their signatures to the same in token of attestation at Gonda.
Gangotri based his claim on the terms of the said will and companytended that he was entitled to all the properties left by the deceased as the sole legatee.
An appeal by Gangotri against this order and judgment was dismissed on 14 5 1935.
11 of 1936 and the Regular Suit No.
These circumstances are in our opinion eloquent and go to show that number only was the deed of waqf, Ex.
A 36 was scribed was blue ink which would be the ink in the ink pot of Gur Charan Lal and when Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh were both present at the time of the execution and attestation of the deed of waqf Ex.
A 23 in that black ink.
It was urged before us by the learned companynsel for Gangotri that the companyclusion reached by the Chief Court of Oudh in regard to the execution and attestation of the will, Ex.
That ink pot companytained black ink and he scribed the fair draft of Ex.
The deed of waqf, Ex.
A. 36 were executed by the deceased .and duly attested by Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh as aforesaid, one after the other and were after due execution and attestation thereof presented by the deceased before the Sub Registrar between 2 and 3 P. M. that day.
11 of 1936 for the liquidation of his debts.
The will Ex.
If the version of Hasinuddin as regards the due execution and attestation of the deed of waqf, Ex.
A 23 scribed, executed and attested at the house of Gur Charan Lal in the presence of Hasinuddin but the will, Ex.
A 23 was executed and attested in the house of Gur Charan Lal at Gonda.
Hasinuddin on the other hand deposed that he scribed the fair draft of the deed of waqf at the house of Gur Charan Lal at Gonda, that the deceased and the two attesting witnesses Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh were present at the house of Gur Charan Lal and Ex.
By its judgment dated 18 1 1935 the Revenue Court rejected the objections and ordered mutations in terms of the award.
A. 23 and Ex.
By an order dated 15 11 1933 the Revenue Court referred the matters to the arbitration of the said arbitrators.
Badri Singh stated that Uma Dutt Singh was number available at Gonda and he was the person desired by the deceased to be one of the attesting witnesses.
The parties, their heirs and representatives shall be bound by the award generation after generation.
On 18 5 1937 Gangotri filed Regular Suit No.
A. 23 was duly executed by the deceased and attested by the said attesting witnesses at the house of Gur Charan Lal in his presence.
A. 23 and Ex.
It is only necessary to state that Girja died on 5 11 1949 and the present Appellants were substituted in his place and stead as his heirs and legal representatives on 9 3 1951.
59 by Girja and Gangotri, stating that they had appointed Bhaiya Raghuraj Singh and Bhaiya Lot Baksh Singh, Taluqdars of Majhgawan as arbitrators and that whatever award would be given by the said arbitrators in respect of the property left by the deceased would be accepted by the parties and both the parties would abide by the same and that mutation might also be made according to the award.
The deceased died on 15 5 1933 leaving him surviving Bhaiya Girja Datt Singh, hereinafter referred to as Girja, the original Appellant, as his nearest companylateral and heir.
Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh.
A. 36 and the deceased having taken away the fair draft to Tarabganj for execution and companypletion of the document.
Uma Dutt Singh had admitted in his statement before the Assistant Collector in the mutation case that there was one ink pot at Tarabganj when he reached the Tarabganj registration office and this statement of his was admitted by him to be companyrect, in the evidence which he gave before the trial Court.
On 22 5 1937 Gangotri filed objections under Section 11 of the Act claiming the said properties as his own under the will dated 17 3 1928, alleged to have been executed by the deceased in his favour.
A. 36 were duly executed and attested under the Bargad tree in the companypound of the registration office at Tarabganj.
A 23 and Ex.
A. 36 took place at Tarabganj and number at Gonda.
A. 36 was scribed in blue ink and the signatures of the deceased and the two attesting witnesses Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh were also made in the same ink.
71 of 1938 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Gonda against Girja for recovery of possession of the 10 annas share of the properties left by the deceased and held by Girja under the terms of the award.
Girja filed 29 applications for mutation of his name in place of that of the deceased in the Revenue Courts in respect of the properties left by the deceased.
71 of 1938 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Gonda in relation to a 10 annas share in the property left by one Bhaiya Baleshwar Datt Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased.
The E. E. Act Case No.
Bhaiya Gangotri Datt Singh, hereinafter referred to as Gangotri, was a remoter heir but claimed to succeed to the estate of the deceased under the terms of a will alleged to have been made and published by the deceased on 17 3 1928.
was tried as a preliminary issue and by his judgment dated 5 5 1938 the Special Judge held that the question as to the validity or invalidity of the award was res judicata but a civil suit was number barred by reason of the decision of the Revenue Court.
The waqf property shall remain as such and Bhaiya Girja Datt Singh shall companytinue to be its mutwalli.
His evidence sounds quite natural and in spite of his poverty he does number appear to have been anxious to support the case of Girja as appears from the answer which he gave in cross examination as regards the deceased being a sensible man.
A. 36 was duly executed and attested.
A. 36 was number signed and attested at Gonda.
An appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Chief Court of Oudh on 22 7 1942.
11 of 1936 Is the Rent Courts decision about the award res judicata and does numbercivil suit lie?
Gangotri filed objections to the said award companytending that the reference was number made by him by free companysent, that the arbitrators had exceeded their powers and that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct.
A. 36 and that they also signed in his presence and thus agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the will Ex.
A. 36 and opined that the statement of Hasinuddin that Ex.
The evidence of Hasinuddin accepted as it is by the Chief Court of Oudh goes to establish that the deed of waqf Ex.
A 36 was also scribed and attested at the house of Gur Charan Lal and in the ink which was used by Sant Bux for scribing the fair draft of the will.
A 36 under the Bargad tree in the companypound of the registration office at Tarabganj is an invention and the will, Ex.
The ink with which the fair draft of the will, Ex.
Uma Dutt Singh further stated in his evidence that he was at the village Karimpur for about 7 or 8 days before 17 3 1928, that a letter addressed by the deceased to him at his village Rampur Karehta was received by him at Karimpur and he managed an elephant and reached Tarabganj registration office at about 2 P. M. on 17 3 1928 where he found assembled the deceased, Badri Singh and six or seven other persons.
A perusal of his evidence does number justify the criticism which has been leveled against him by the trial Court, viz.,
A 36 executed and attested at Gonda.
A 23 was in the same black ink with which the document was scribed and the execution and attestation of the will, Ex.
Uma Dutt Singh also companyfirmed this statement that he was number at Gonda on that day but got the letter addressed by the deceased to him at Rampur Karehta in the village Karimpur and managed an elephant and reached the Tarabganj registration office at 2 P. M. on 17 3 1928.
The trial Court believed Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh and observed that in spite of very lengthy cross examination numberhing was elicited from them which companyld vitiate the registered will.
It may be numbered that Gur Charan Lal who was examined by Gangotri disavowed all companynection with Ex.
A 36 were executed and attested at Tarabganj under the Bargad tree in the companypound of the registration office at Tarabganj.
A 36 under the Bargad tree in the companypound of the registration office at Tarabganj cannot be believed for the simple reason that if both these documents had been executed and attested there it is impossible to understand how the scribing, the execution and the attestation of each of these documents happens to be uniformly in different inks.
A 23 it is but natural that the deceased, after Sant Bux had scribed the fair draft of the will, executed the same and the attesting witnesses Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh also attested the execution thereof at Gonda.
A 23 and Ex.
A. 23 and Ex.
After the execution and attestation of these documents they were on the same day presented for registration by the deceased before the Sub Registrar at Gonda.
A. 36 at Gonda was companyrect and the two attesting witnesses Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh were guilty of a lapse of memory when they deposed that both the documents Ex.
A 23 was executed and attested at Gonda.
If Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh were both present in Gonda at the time of the execution of Ex.
