- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Singh v. Board Of Revenue U.P Allahabad And Others Opposite Parties.
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition arises out of a suit for partition under Section 76 of Act No. I of 1951. The parties are related family members, descendants of Bachchan Singh, who had five sons including Ram Baran Singh, Deo Singh, and Samoo. The plaintiffs, descendants of Deo Singh's daughter Smt. Lachi, filed the suit for partition against descendants of Samoo, claiming a one-fifth share in the holding. The plaintiffs alleged that Smt. Rukmina, wife of Ram Baran Singh, died before Deo Singh. The defendants contested this, denying her death or alternatively contending she died after Deo Singh. The trial court held that Smt. Rukmina died during Deo Singh's lifetime and decreed the plaintiffs’ claim. Subsequent appeals by the defendants were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, and the Board of Revenue. The defendant Rama Singh filed this writ petition challenging those decisions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Smt. Rukmina is dead.
- If Smt. Rukmina is dead, whether she died before or after Deo Singh's death.
- The applicability and scope of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act in presuming death and fixing the time of death.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner no longer disputes that Smt. Rukmini is dead.
- The petitioner contends that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Smt. Rukmini died during Deo Singh’s lifetime.
- The petitioner argues that Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act allows presumption of death but does not permit fixing the time of death.
- He cited multiple decisions supporting the contention that the time of death cannot be presumed under Section 108.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The plaintiffs led evidence that Smt. Rukmini left for Gangasagar Yatra 17 years ago and has not been heard of since, relying on Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act to presume her death before Deo Singh’s death.
- The Board of Revenue accepted this presumption and held that she died during Deo Singh’s lifetime.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 108, Indian Evidence Act | Presumption of death when a person has not been heard of for seven years. | The court acknowledged that Section 108 permits presuming death but held that it does not fix the time of death. The court further held that the presumption of death can be supplemented by reasonable inferences from facts and circumstances. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the applicability of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits presuming a person dead if not heard of for seven years. The petitioner was correct in stating that this provision does not fix the time of death. However, the court observed that Section 108 is not exhaustive regarding presumptions about death. The court reasoned that in light of the specific circumstances—Smt. Rukmini leaving for a pilgrimage 17 years ago and never returning—it is reasonable to infer she died during the journey or shortly thereafter.
The court considered that a pilgrim ordinarily returns within six months to a year, and since she had not been heard of for 17 years, it was reasonable to assume death around 1941 or 1942. Evidence indicated Deo Singh died around 1945. Therefore, the plaintiffs successfully established that Smt. Rukmini died during Deo Singh’s lifetime. The court upheld the findings of the Revenue Courts and rejected the petitioner’s contention.
Holding and Implications
The petition is dismissed.
The court upheld the decision that Smt. Rukmini died before Deo Singh, thereby supporting the plaintiffs' claim in the partition suit. The stay order previously granted was vacated, and costs were awarded to respondent No. 4. This decision directly affects the parties by confirming the plaintiffs’ entitlement to their claimed share in the partition. No new precedent was established beyond applying established principles of presumption of death under Indian Evidence Act Section 108 in the context of circumstantial evidence.
Oak, J.:— This writ petition arises but of a suit for partition under Sec. 76 of Act No. I of 1951.
2. The parties to the suit were related ??? one another as shown in the pedigree given in the affidavit. Bachchan Singh had five sons including Ram ??? Singh, Deo Singh and Samoo. Ram Baran Singh's wife was Smt. ???. Deo Singh's daughter was Smt. Lachi. Her sons are Dashrath and others. Samoo's sons are Sharda, Rama and Markandey. Dashrath and others filed the suit for partition against Sharda and others claiming ???/5th Share in the holding. According the plaintiffs, Smt. Rukmina died before Deo Singh. The plaintiffs' claim was resisted by the defendants. In the first place, it was denied that Smt. Rukmina is dead. In the alternative, it was suggested that she might have died after Deo Singh's death. The trial Court hold that Smt. Rukmina is dead, and that she died during Deo Singh's lifetime. The plaintiffs' claim was, therefore, decreed.
3. Successive appeals by the defendants were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi and the Board of Revenue. Hence this writ petition by Rama Singh defendant.
4. The decision of the case turned on the questions whether Smt. Rukmina is dead; and if so, whether she died before or after Deo Singh's death. Mr. S.N Singh, appearing for the petitioner no longer disputes Smt. Rukmini's death. But he strongly contended that the plaintiffs failed to establish that, she died during Deo Singh's life-time.
5. The plaintiffs led evidence to the effect that, Smt. Rukmini went for Gangasagar Yatra 17 years ago; since then she has not been heard of. Relying on this circumstance, the Board of Revenue (relying on Sec. 108, Indian Evidence Act) held that, Smt. Rukmini should be presumed to have died before Deo Singh's death. Mr. S.N Singh contended that, the reasoning of the Board of Revenue is erroneous. Under Sec. 108, Indian Evidence Act, the Court could presume the lady's death. But that provision could not be pressed into service for fixing the time of death. Mr. S.N Singh cited a number of decisions in support of his contention. Mr. S.N Singh is right in his contention that, all that one may presume under Sec. 108, Indian Evidence Act is that, the person concerned is dead. Under that provision of law, one cannot fix the time of the persons' death.
6. But Sec. 108, Indian Evidence Act is not exhaustive on the question of presumptions as regards death of a person. The Court may make a suitable presumption in accordance with the circumstances of each case. Suppose, a man sails in ship; and the ship sinks. Thereafter the man is never seen alive. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the person died in the shipwreck. When a person goes for pilgrimage, he or she ordinarily returns home in six months or in a year. In the present case Smt. Rukmini left for Gangasagar Yatra 17 years ago. Since then she has not been heard of. It is reasonable to assume that, she died in some accident or of some disease during the journey or at Gangasagar. She appears to have left about the year 1940. We may reasonably assume that, she probably died by 1941 or 1942 in connection with her pilgrimage. There is evidence to the effect that, Deo Singh died about 1945. If the plaintiffs established circumstances indicating Smt. Rukmini's death by 1942, and further proved that Deo Singh died in 1945, they have proved their case. The Revenue Courts were justified in holding that, Smt. Rukmini died during deo Singh's life-time.
7. The petition is dismissed with costs to respondent No. 4. The stay order dated 6-9-1961 is vacated.
8. Petition dismissed.
Alert