(A) Relationship of Husband and wife – Proof of – Claim on property on strength of being wife of deceased – Petitioner held not wife of deceased – Held: It is an admitted version that deceased was a public servant. He could have declared the relationship in medical reimbursement, GPF nomination, or the service record; however, no such record was produced to corroborate the version of the plaintiff – Relationship of Husband and wife not proved (Para 32, 34)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 – Evidence – Adverse inference – Paternity and Date of Birth – Petitioner not appear as witness – She has not given any reason for non-appearance in the Court. Learned Trial Court held that an adverse inference has to be drawn against her because she was the best witness to prove that she was born on 12.4.1955 and that She is the daughter of Balak Ram. Learned Trial Court erred in drawing an adverse inference. The paternity and date of birth are not within the knowledge of a person. This information is supplied to him by his relatives and is hearsay; hence, a person cannot said to be the best witness regarding the paternity or his date of birth. (Para 35 to 43)
(C) Possession – Possession granted without demand in declaration Suit – First Appellate Court had not granted the mere declaration but had gone further and granted the relief of possession. This was not permissible – The learned First Appellate Court erred in granting the relief of possession without the same being specifically asked. (Para 49, 50)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 212 HP
Naresh Kumar Vs. Amra Devi And Others
RSA No. 4 of 2006-Decided on 27-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-212-HP.pdf
