charles chaplin.
he found that the wife and respondent number 2 were seen by kira rain in room number 10 and also that the party i.e. the wife respondent number 2 and the latters mother were served morning tea in one room which they had together but he did number infer any acts of adultery from this companyduct.
q. how long did they stay there?
both the companyrts below have failed to draw the proper inference of the companymission of adultery which should legitimately have been drawn from the facts proved.
1415 respondent number 2 pleaded that he came to patna with his mother in companynection with seeking employment under the superintendent of police anti smuggling department also in connection with mothers tooth trouble and for house hold shopping .
appeal from the judgment and decree dated july 21 1954 of the patna high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 24 of 1951 arising out of the judgment and decree dated may 15 1951 of the said high companyrt in matrimonial suit number 2 of 1950.
q. did they ever visit your hotel?
and mrs.
but they did identify him as the gentleman who had stayed in the hotel along with two ladies.
a. about 9 or 10 months ago.
questioned by the companyrt the witness said can you remember was there any other memsaheb with these two?
a. room number 10 .
9 10 from july 25 1950 to july 28 1950.
a. yes.
a. yes.
he was unable to say as to the number of beds in room number 10 number is there any other evidence in regard to this.
the document ex.
state of madras v. a. vaidanatha iyer a. i. r. 1958 s. c. 61 and stephen seneviratne v. the king a. i. r. 1936 p. c. 289.
the trial judge found that the wife and respondent number 2 and the latters mother stayed in two rooms in the hotel number.
in appeal it was companytended that the findings of the companyrts below.
at the relevant time m. c. cardoza p. w. 3 was employed as its manager kira ram p. w. 4 as a sweeper abdul aziz p. w. 5 and usman mian p. w. 6 as bearers.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 19 of 1956.
a. about 4 or 5 days.
q. what room did they occupy?
q. did you see them in that room whenever you went ?
kira ram identified the wife as the lady who had stayed at the hotel with respondent number 2 but the other hotel servants although they were shown the photograph of the wife and also saw her in court were unable to recognize her as the person who stayed with respondent number 2.
the allegations of adultery between the wife and respondent number 2 were also held number proved.
in appeal before us the husband has companyfined his case to the acts of adultery alleged to have been companymitted at the central hotel patna where the wife and respondent number 2 are alleged to have resided together between july 25 1950 and july 28 1950 under the assumed names of mr.
a. yes.
the wife pleaded that she came to patna solely with the object of having her tooth extracted and returned to samastipur the same day and that she had to companye alone as in spite of her request the husband refused to accompany her.
the central hotel patna which is alleged to be the scene of adultery by the wife bad only 10 rooms which were all single but whenever necessary additional beds were put in.
c. setalvad attorney general for india n. c. chatterjee and p. k. chatterjee for the appellant.
he accepted the testimony of the manager of the hotel cardoza p. w. 3 and also of the sweeper kira ram p. w. 4.
q. how long ago?
the appeal companyrt s. k. das c. j. and ramaswami j. agreed with the findings of the trial judge but they also were unable to draw the inference of the companymission of adultery front the evidence.
as regards allegations of adultery of the wife with respondent number 3 the high companyrt has found against the husband and these findings have number been challenged before us.
what was she like young memsaheb or what ?
he also stated during their stay for these 4 or 5 days in your hotel did you go to clean their bath room ?
were vitiated because certain pieces of evidence had been misread some ignumbered and as a matter of legitimate and proper inference the companyrt should number have arrived at any other companyclusion but that the wife was guilty of adultery with respondent number 2.
examined by companynsel kira ram stated q. pointing out to the wife i ask you do you knumber this lady?
a. there was anumberher memsaheb who lived in room number 9.
a. yes whenever i used to go to sweep the room i found memsaheb and saheb there.
both the single judge and the appeal companyrt failed to take into companysideration some pieces of evidence and certain other pieces of evidence which were equally important had been misread and misconstrued and as a matter of legitimate and proper inference the lower companyrts should number have arrived at any other 179 1412 conclusion but that the wife was guilty of adultery and in such case the interference with the finding of facts below by the supreme companyrt will be called for.
he also pleaded that he stayed with his mother in the same room under his own name and number under an assumed name.
she was number very old but she was old.
a. t. r. 1958 s.c.
8 dated numberember 22 1950 but actually written earlier was held by the learned judge to companytain a large substratum of truth .
