The appellant assails the credibility of the oral evidence of C.W.47 on the ground that he was an interested witness. Though he was admittedly a retired Professor of Agricultural from the Annamalai University, the appellant claims that he was an interested witness, as he himself was one of the claimants.
33. But, we are unable to sustain the above objection. Merely because C.W.47 was also a claimant in a few Original Petitions, his expertise cannot be doubted or belittled. The oral testimony of a person who happens to have an interest in the case and who also is an expert in the field need not always be rejected. As a matter of fact, it is permitted in the Law of Evidence for the parties to a dispute, to examine the experts as witnesses on either side. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, every expert brought by one of the parties to a litigation could be treated as an interested witness. Even in criminal cases, the law is well settled that the evidence of a person cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that he is related to the deceased. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Gangabhavani vs. Royapatti Venkat Reddy, such an evidence may require careful scrutiny, but it can certainly be relied upon, if it has a ring of truth in it and is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the objection of the appellant that the Tribunal ought not to have accepted the evidence of C.W.47.
Madras High Court
The Special Tahsildar vs Thangarasu
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.Mathivanan
Appeal Suit Nos. 20 of 2014 to 61 of 2014
Dated: 29.7.2015
