Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (Feb. 13, 1900) reversing a decree of the First Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur (July 12, 1897). The appellant, Debi Pershad Chowdhry, sued as next reversioner to the Hila Bhatokher estate expectant on the death of Rani Radha Chowdhrain for a declaration that certain alienations of the estate made by her, and more particularly a deed of gift executed by her on July 21, 1895, in favour of the respondents, would be inoperative as against him after her death. The main question decided was whether the appellant had proved that he is the next reversioner. On this point the Courts below differed; the Subordinate Judge found the pedigree proved; the High Court considered the evidence insufficient to establish the appellants right. On this question of pedigree the High Court found that Shibnag Chandi Nath was descended from Ghansham, who had two sons, Kamlapat and Deo Chand. It found also that the plaintiffs grandfather was Kirpa Nath. The connecting links from Deo Chand to Kirpa Nath depended on oral evidence; and Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 160 ( 1903- 1904) Debi Pershad C howdhey V. Rani Radha Chowdhrain 63 on this point the judgment proceeded as follows— " What the plaintiff has to prove is that Kirpa Nath was the son of Shanker Nath, that Shanker Nath was the son of Manik Chand, and that Manik Chand was the son of Deo Chand. If he can establish these three links he has proved his case. Now, this part of the plaintiffs case entirely rests on his oral evidence, and, if his witnesses are to be fully believed, he has made out his right to the relief prayed for. The Subordinate Judge, while disbelieving the plaintiffs witnesses on many material points, has yet credited their statements as to the genealogy of the plaintiff, although it cannot be within their personal knowledge who were the father of Kirpa Nath, Shanker, and Manik. We are, however, unable to place so much reliance as the Subordinate Judge has placed on the statements of these witnesses. They cannot, we think, be regarded as disinterested or reliable witnesses. We are, however, unable to place so much reliance as the Subordinate Judge has placed on the statements of these witnesses. They cannot, we think, be regarded as disinterested or reliable witnesses. They are nine in number, and may be divided into two classes—the first class consisting of relatives of the plaintiff, the second of relatives and dependants of one Kartik Nath Pandy, a connection of the plaintiff by marriage, and who is undoubtedly supporting and assisting him in the prosecution of this case. Now the witnesses of the first class are Gaibi Nath Pandy, who is the plaintiffs brother-in-law; (2.) Kedar Nath Upadhya, plaintiffs uncles son-in-law; (3.) Shib Dyal Misser, plaintiffs paternal uncles son ; (4.) Rameswar Nath Dobay, plaintiffs brother-in-law; and (5.) G-aura Chowdhrani, the plaintiffs mother. The second class consists of (1.) Kartik Nath Pandy, connected with the plaintiff by marriage, who admittedly assists plaintiff in this case; (2.) Eknath Sukul, mothers sisters son of Kartik; (3.) Jag Lal Tewari, Kartiks cook and servant; and (4.) Durbari Lal Pandy, Kartiks raiyat. The Subordinate Judge has disbelieved these witnesses in so far as they say that the plaintiffs father, Gobind, performed the sradh of Shib Nag. He has found that this sradh was performed by the defendant No. 1 herself, and this we fully believe to have been the case; and yet he has believed them when they depose that they heard the plaintiffs genealogy recited on the occasion of religious ceremonies, and when they say, too, that the defendant No. 1 admitted the plaintiff to be her husbands nearest agnate, and that, with her assent, the plaintiffs father performed various religious ceremonies as the nearest agnate and heir of her husband. "Now, in addition to the distrust in these witnesses veracity, which we must feel owing to the false evidence they have given as to the performance of the sradh of Shib Nag, we must say that it seems to us very unlikely that the defendant would acknowledge the plaintiffs father as her husbands nearest agnate, and would allow him to perform religious ceremonies on her behalf during the lifetime of Harbans Tewari, admitted by both sides to have been a nearer agnate of Shib Nags than the plaintiffs father, and we cannot accept as satisfactory the exposition of the reasons given by the Subordinate Judge, which probably induced the defendant No. 1 to act in this way. It is sufficient for us to point out that the Subordinate Judge himself does not entirely rely on the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses as to these alleged admissions. For he says Of other instances, when she is said to have described the relationship between Gobind Pershad and her late husband, the one when she is said to have prevented Gobind Pershad from accepting an offer of marriage from Panday family of Pakour, may not be reliable. But there is not sufficient reason for disbelieving all of them. The question would rather seem to us to be whether there is sufficient reason for believing them when they made so many statements which are clearly untrue. Are we able to sift the true part (if any) of their evidence from the false, and would we be justified in relying on them to such an extent as to interfere with the devolution of very valuable property upon persons who are certainly relations, and by no means very remote relations, of the last owner of the property ? As to the religious ceremonies said to have been performed by the parents of the plaintiffs, and which are described in the Subordinate Judges judgment, we cannot, on the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, feel confident that they really took place.” De Gruyther, for the appellants, contended that the pedigree was proved. Some part of it was proved by the defendants witnesses. The history of the family prepared at the end of the eighteenth century, rightly admitted by both Courts, proved that Deo Chand was the brother of Kamlapat. The connecting Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. Some part of it was proved by the defendants witnesses. The history of the family prepared at the end of the eighteenth century, rightly admitted by both Courts, proved that Deo Chand was the brother of Kamlapat. The connecting Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 160 ( 1903- 1904) Debi Pershad C howdhey V. Rani Radha Chowdhrain 64 links between Deo Chand and Kirpa Nath was proved by evidence believed by the first Court and improperly discredited by the High Court. The denial of the pedigree was most general. No other pedigree was set up. There was no evidence of Kirpa Naths ancestors other than those alleged. The plaintiffs evidence was corroborated by the history above mentioned, by the action of Kirpa Nath in 1812, by the uncontradicted allegations of Gobind, Mokund, and Jug Lal m 1863 and 1885 contained in petitions which could not have been put forward if this pedigree were inaccurate. Haldane, K.C., and C. W. Arathoon, for the respondents, contended that, for the reasons stated in the High Court judgment, the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses as to the pedigree should be discredited. De Gruyther replied. July 26. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD ROBERTSON. At the date of the suit out of which this appeal arises the respondents were in possession of the estate in dispute. Their title was a deed of gift in their favour dated July 21, 1895. This deed was executed by Rani Radha Chowdhrain, widow of Shib Nag Chandi Nath Chowdhry, to whom the estate had belonged. (This lady, who figures largely in the controversy, will be referred to as the Chowdhrain.) The validity of this deed was immediately challenged by the appellant Debi Pershad Chowdhry, who, in the suit brought on September 12, 1895, claimed a declaration that he was next reversioner, and that the Chowdhrains gift was invalid and not binding on him. Besides the Chowdhrain and her donees, the appellant Debi Pershad impleaded one Earn Nath Chowdhry, who made pretensions to the estate which have now been finally negatived, and certain relatives who make no claim. The contest in the Courts below was between the plaintiff on the one hand, and the Chowdhrain and her donees on the other. The Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the appellant Debi Pershad, but this was reversed in the High Court. The contest in the Courts below was between the plaintiff on the one hand, and the Chowdhrain and her donees on the other. The Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the appellant Debi Pershad, but this was reversed in the High Court. After judgment had been given in the High Court the Chowdhrain died, and the respondents in the present appeal are the donees. The second and third appellants are persons to whom the first appellant has sold some part of his interest. The respondents admit that their position as donees of a widow is untenable as against an agnatic relation of the husband of their donor. The whole question is whether the appellant Debi Pershad (who may hereafter be called the appellant) has proved his pedigree as nearest agnate of Shib Nag, and has thus shewn a title to eject them. This question is still further narrowed by explaining that the disputed steps in the following pedigree are those which make Kirpa Nath, who was admittedly the appellants grandfather, to have been himself the great-grandson of Deo Chand, through Shanker Nath and Manik Chand. The pedigree is as follows? Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 160 ( 1903- 1904) Debi Pershad C howdhey V. Rani Radha Chowdhrain 65 Hira Nand | | Kissen Narayan | | | Ruy Narayan Bhagirath | || Ghansam | | || Kamlapat Deo Chand | | | | || Harihar (many descendants alive) | | | Paran Khem | ChanNarayan | (see page 85 | Kubula)| | || Narayan Raghbur Manik Chand Sham Chand || Narayan || || || Munni Ram Ganga Shankar Nath Madho | Ram | Pershad || Bataso + Shib Nag Chandi Nath+ Rani Radha(D1) Kirpa Nath predeceased Shib Nag Chandi Nath | | | | | | | | | Sukh Lal + Natho Deorani Koshki | Janki Predecease Nath | | d Rani Predecease | | Radha d Shib Nag | | Chandi | | Nath | | Harbans Predecease d Rani Radha | 0 | Gobind | | | | | Mokund predeceased Rani Radha | | Jug Lal predeceased Rani Radha | | Nunda Kishore (D2) | Ananta Kishore (D3) | Debi Pershad (P) | Narayan Chand predeceased Rani Radha | Lalaram predeceased Jug Lal | | | Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 31 Ind. App. 160 ( 1903- 1904) Debi Pershad C howdhey V. Rani Radha Chowdhrain 66 Ambiko Mahabir Minor Minor Before examining the evidence on this controverted part of the pedigree it may be convenient first to mention the facts more immediately personal to the appellant. He and his father before him (Gobind Pershad) lived on the estate in dispute and were in the employment of, and well known to, the Chowdhrain. Kirpa Nath, the appellants grandfather, also lived on the estate, and was well known to many of the witnesses, having lived to a great age and being, probably on that account, a noted character. The appellants uncle, Mokund, a brother of Gobind, also lived on the estate, and, like the others of his family, was a quite well-known man. Accordingly, on the first view, the case of the appellant is not the case of a claimant who drops from the skies, but of a man who and whose people were well settled in the district and about whom everybody knew, including the people disputing their claim. The Chowdhrain, it is true, pretended in the witness-box to ignore them; but her denials of everybody and everything were so wholesale and undiscriminating that the respondents did not claim credit for her as a witness of truth. Of the true degree of intimacy between this very lady and the group of persons in question there is a very significant indication in an episode of her deposition, for her own pleader suggested that Gaibi Nath Panday (who married the appellants sister and is an important witness for him) should "repeat the exact words in cross-examination," he being a person " before whom the witness appears." Now of this family (namely, that of the appellant) thus well known it is certain that three times, namely, in 1812, in 1863, and in 1885, its representative for the time being has, occasion requiring it, made public assertion of his position as an agnate of the Chowdhrains husband, and has never met with a denial. In 1812 Kirpa Nath, the appellants grandfather, and in 1863 and 1885 Gobind Pershad, the appellants father, came into Court in the quality of agnate. These judicial appearances have not the less significance that while Kirpa Nath came into Court adversely to the interests of the Chowdhrain, the intervention of the father, Gobind Pershad, was invoked by the Chowdhrain herself. In 1812 Kirpa Nath, the appellants grandfather, and in 1863 and 1885 Gobind Pershad, the appellants father, came into Court in the quality of agnate. These judicial appearances have not the less significance that while Kirpa Nath came into Court adversely to the interests of the Chowdhrain, the intervention of the father, Gobind Pershad, was invoked by the Chowdhrain herself. In face of these facts, it would be affectation to treat the thesis of the appellant as expressed in his pedigree as being in any high degree improbable; but it not the less must be adequately proved. Now the appellant brings a substantial body of evidence from his own kinsfolk, which is clearly within the Indian Evidence Act. This evidence derives special weight from the considerations explained in the following passage in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in this case— " The plaintiff himself says, that amongst others he heard the names recited by his father and uncles and Durga Dutt Chowdhry. It is well known, as has been recorded in that first volume of the fifth report from the Select Committee, that Hindu boys are taught the names of their ancestors, paternal and maternal, by their parents and other relatives while they are very young, together with their gotras and prabars, &c. These instructions are given not merely as a matter of curiosity, but as a matter of necessity; for Hindus, and specially the Brahmins, are required to perform their sradhs annually and on parbana occasions, and to offer water oblations (tarpana) for a whole fortnight, or rather fifteen days of the dark side of the moon in the month of Bhadro. Their right of inheritance depends upon such ceremonies, and their marriages are regulated according to blood relationship. This way the names of the ancestors up to the seventh degree in ascent(the Sakulyas) at the least are taught, though in most respectable families the names up to the fourteenth degree in ascent (the Samanodakas) are also taught. So, there is nothing unusual in the plaintiffs statement." It cannot be doubted that, in its quality, this is admissible evidence. The singular criticism of the High Court is that it comes from relatives of the appellant; but it is difficult to see where else such evidence Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. So, there is nothing unusual in the plaintiffs statement." It cannot be doubted that, in its quality, this is admissible evidence. The singular criticism of the High Court is that it comes from relatives of the appellant; but it is difficult to see where else such evidence Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 160 ( 1903- 1904) Debi Pershad C howdhey V. Rani Radha Chowdhrain 67 could be found, or that in the mouths of strangers it would have any value at all. Each of the persons who has spoken to this pedigree has been carefully cross-examined, and each proves circumstances, apart from the pedigree, which support his knowledge and credit. This is not the case of a pedigree learned by rote, but it is circumstantially corroborated, as far as time and memory admit. Their Lordships are unable to agree with the High Court in their appreciations of the evidence. For the reason already given, they do not think that the relationship of one class of the witnesses is a consideration which should inspire more than the ordinary caution with which testimony is sifted where sympathy with one side is to be taken for granted. Again the High Court discards, or at least largely discounts, the rest of the appellants witnesses because it appears that one of them, Kartik Nath Panday, besides being a relative, was "assisting the appellant" in the case, and the others are connected with this person by blood or service. Their Lordships do not consider this to be a safe or sufficiently discriminating way of dealing with the testimony of these witnesses. They observe that the Subordinate Judge describes Kartik Nath Panday as " a very respectable zemindar of this district"; and it is at least conceivable that he is supporting his kinsman because he knows his cause to be just. Nor do the instances in which the Subordinate Judge declined to accept specific statements of the witnesses seem to imply any reason for distrusting their testimony generally. The matter of the sradh, of which the High Court makes much, involves the credit of only one witness; and the other instances in which the Subordinate Judge has not acted on the evidence do not involve more than caution on his part or inaccuracy on the part of the witness. The matter of the sradh, of which the High Court makes much, involves the credit of only one witness; and the other instances in which the Subordinate Judge has not acted on the evidence do not involve more than caution on his part or inaccuracy on the part of the witness. In default of more substantial topics, the learned counsel for the respondents bestowed much attention on a supposed anachronism in a pedigree which is printed in the record. It is enough to say that it is adequately proved that there were two persons of the name of Kirpa Nath; and, if this be so, the difficulty disappears. Their Lordships deem it unnecessary to refer to several ephemeral arguments naturally arising out of a case so voluminous. Their Lordships are satisfied that the appellant has established his claim. They will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be allowed, the decree of the High Court discharged with costs, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restored. The respondents will pay the costs of the appeal.