On or about 28.7.1978, the respondent herein filed a suit challenging the said order passed by the Revenue Officer in the mutation proceedings, inter alia, claiming that the property was a joint companyarcenary property and, thus, Nandi did number derive any interest therein.
The following substantial questions of law were formulated by the High Court Whether the evidence led by the defendants companyforms to the requirements of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and as such can be taken to have proved the relationship of Smt.
As to whether the learned companyrts below have returned their findings on the basis of such evidence which is number admissible in view of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and are also based upon the mis reading of the evidence led by the parties?
The share of Bakhtawar Singh in the said property was mutated in favour of Niranjan Singh, son of Munshi Singh and Bant Singh and Bachan Kaur, son and daughter of Nandi, being his class two heirs.
While upholding the findings of the learned Trial Judge in regard to the relationship of the appellants vis vis the said Bakhtawar Singh holding that Nandi, was the mother of the appellants was the daughter of Chartu and the sister of Bakhtawar Singh.
He attended the marriage of Nandi when he was only 15 years old.
In answer to a question put to him in cross examination, he, in numberuncertain terms, categorically stated that he had heard as well as saw Nandi calling Munshi Singh and Bakhtawar Singh as brother.
It was also held that the property in suit was number a companyarcenary property and, thus, Niranjan Singh and Bakhtawar Singh had half shares each therein.
In its judgment and order dated 31.3.1981, the learned Trial Judge held that the property in suit being joint companyarcenary property, Nandi did number inherit any interest therein.
The learned Trial Judge in view of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues Whether the disputed property is joint Hindu Family companyarcenary property of the plaintiff and the deceased Bakhtawar Singh and his ancestors?
1 and 2 are the son and daughter of aforesaid Nandi and are heirs of deceased Bakhtawar Singh?
To the same effect allegedly mutation in the revenue records was carried out.
OPP ii Whether deceased Nandi was the daughter of Chartu as alleged?
He was aged 75 years on the date of his deposition.
Appellants preferred an appeal thereagainst which, by a judgment and order dated 12.3.1981, was allowed.
However, in regard to the status of the appellants, it was held that Nandi was the daughter of Chartu and sister of Bakhtawar Singh.
1 and 2 with Bakhtawar Singh deceased?
To the similar effect is the evidence of DW 2, Hajura Singh who was another brother of Baksha Singh.
Bakhtawar, the other son of Chartu died on 25.10.1972.
It was furthermore companytended that Nandi was number the daughter of Chartu.
OPD iv Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land?
Nandi, mother of defendants No.
Cross objection of the respondents in regard to the finding of the learned Trial Judge on issue Nos.
OPD iii Whether defendant No.
A second appeal was preferred thereagainst.
OPD Relief.
If number its effect?
