TMI Blog1973 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court. The first two of the three points formulated for determination by the High Court reflect the controversy raised before us and may be expected : 1. Whether the said shop-room at the extreme north west corner of plot No. 1238 belongs exclusively to the defendants first party; 2. Whether the entire properties mentioned in Schedule C to the plaint are joint family properties liable to partition, and.... Point No. 2 relates to three items in Schedule C to the plaint which were covered by four usufructuary mortgages, Ex-B-1 to B-4. The case of the first (contesting) defendant, who is the first respondent before us now, is that these items of property exclusively belonged to him. The Trial Court has accepted this case and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiffs'. success. while the trial court partially upheld the possession of the first defendant of this shop-building it did not go the whole hog in upholding his right. The learned Judges of the High Court held that the same admissions which had been relied upon by the trial court for holding in favour of the first defendant's title to the mortgaged lands covered by Exs. B-1 to B-4 operated against the plaintiffs regarding the shop-building also. There is no doubt that if the admissions Ex. G (the deposition of the present first plaintiff in Title Suit No. 61 of 1945), Ex. G2 (the deposition in the same suit by the present eighth defendant, and Ex. H (the written statement filed by these parties in the earlier suit are reliable, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity to them to offer their explanation and neutralise the effect of the admissions. We are not satisfied that there is any substance in the grievances voiced by counsel. There was no volte face on the, part of the first defendant. Although it is true that Ms basic defence was a denial of joint family ownership, it is seen that even in the trial court Exs. G, G2 and H had been considered and acted upon. In the appeal to the High Court the present appellants did not state that they had been hit below the belt by the reliance on the admissions by the trial court in holding against them. Indeed, there is no suggestion in the judgment of the High Court that the appellants had even contended about any prejudice to them or that they had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he latter case the Court cannot be invited to disbelieve a witness on the strength of a prior contradictory statement unless. it has been put to him, as required by s. 145 of the Evidence Act. This distinction has been clearly brought out' in the ruling in Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi ([1966] 1 S.C.R. 606; 615-616). This Court disposed of a similar argument with the following observations : Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of ss. 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. We are of opinion that the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
