Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court, through Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, tackled a property dispute concerning the ownership of a property post the demise of Chhabi Rani Bhadra. The plaintiff claimed ownership, asserting Chhabi Rani as the original owner, while the defendants disputed this, alleging the plaintiff was not her biological son. The court’s decision hinged on the conflict between oral testimony and documentary evidence regarding the plaintiff’s lineage.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The plaintiff contended rightful ownership of the property, citing Chhabi Rani Bhadra as the original owner. The defendants refuted this, claiming the plaintiff was not Chhabi’s son and that the property was rightfully sold to defendant no. 1. They argued that oral evidence contradicted the plaintiff’s lineage and challenged the probative value of documentary evidence.

Court’s Judgement:

The court examined the conflict between oral testimony and documentary evidence under Sections 35 and 50 of the Evidence Act. Emphasizing the precedence of documentary evidence, specifically citing the plaintiff’s admit card as proof of lineage, the court dismissed the oral testimonies of witnesses, particularly D.W. 2 Malati Sarkar. It upheld the documentary evidence (Exhibit-7, 8, 8/1, and 9) as indicating a paternal relationship between Aswini and the plaintiff, ultimately affirming the trial court’s decision to set aside the suit dismissal.