The interrogatories would suggest that the marriage had taken place in that year 1955. It may be before May or after May, 1955, nothing is clinching. Adverting to the suggestion put in the course of cross-examination to the respondent by the Counsel for the petitioner, it is so obvious that he had not taken instructions from the petitioner. The petitioner in her evidence has clearly stated that she did not remember as to when the marriage took place. It is for that reason that the date of marriage was not obviously mentioned in the petition nor in the reply statement filed by the Counsel for the petitioner. All of a sudden, however, in the course of cross-examination of the respondent, the counsel has put a random suggestion whether the marriage had not taken place in the year N57. It is obvious from reading the evidence of the petitioner and the interrogatories that this suggestion eminates from the lawyer and was not rooted in the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached. Besides a mere suggestion made and denied is not evidence at all. -The petitioner has stated in the course . of her evidence thus :
"I do not remember on what date and during which year I was proposed to the respondent."
Again she has stated:
"I have forgotten the date of my marriage I do not know the name of Purobit. Sundaramma had arranged the Purohit, The Purobit was a Brahmin. It is in this context that we have to appreciate the suggestion put by the Counsel to the respondent as also the so called admission made by the respondent. Having clearl stated that she does not remember as to the date or year of the marriage, it is elicited frorn her in the further cross-examination that the marriage took place after the respondent retired. This is what she has. stated:
"Respondent7 was retired by then". It may be seen that this sentence occurred in the same para in the beginning of which she has stated "I have forgotten the date of marriage." It is further elicited from her "my father presented a suit and silver articles to the respondent. It may be about two years earlier to the marriage, the respondent had retired from the service". Thus, it is clear that these stray sentences elicited in the cross-examination could hardlv be construed as admission. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Chikkam Koteswara Rao v. Chikkam Subbarao, speaking through Justice Hegde, as he then was, has observed in this behalf thus:
"This admission must be read along with the evidence given by him in his chief examination ............
If we read these statements along with his other evidence and in a harmonious manner, it is clear that what the appellant admitted was that the acquisition in question was made by his father on his behalf and the consideration for the same was paid by his father from out of the appellant's private funds that were in the hands of his father...........
Thus, the Supreme Court has pointed out that before the right of a party can be considered to have been defeated on the- basis of an alleged admission by him, the implication of the statement made by him must be clear and conclusive. There should not be any doubt or ambiguity about the alleged admission and to examine whether there is ambiguity in the admission, it would be necessary for the Court to read the other parts of the evidence and the stand taken by him in the pleadings. Considering in that way, as pointed out above, it becomes obvious that the so called admission is not an admission at all.
Karnataka High Court
Parameshwari Bai vs Muthojirao Scindia on 29 July, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 Kant 40, ILR 1981 KAR 78
Bench: G Sabhahit, D V Rao
