IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14699 of 2011 Ranjana Singh @ Ranjna Singh Versus Smt.Sakuntala Devi & Anr ---------------------------------- O R D E R 05. 13.12.2011. 1. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. S. K. Verma on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. S. S. Dwivedi on behalf of the respondent. 2. The intervener has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.05.2011 passed in probate case No.5 of 1994 by Addl. District Judge, Ist Motihari, West Chamaparan whereby the application filed by the intervener-petitioner for being impleaded as party in probate proceeding in place of her mother has been rejected. 3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the intervener’s mother, Manik Raj Devi, was the opposite party No.2 in probate case No.5 of 1994. She was contesting the probate case filed by the respondent. She died on 12.11.2009 and, therefore, the petitioner filed an application on 21.12.2009 for her impleadment in place of her mother Manik Raj Devi. The respondents filed objection alleging that the petitioner is not the daughter of Bhagat Singh and Manik Raj Devi. Both the parties adduced documentary evidences but the learned Court below wrongly did not consider the evidence of the petitioner and rejected the prayer of the petitioner. - 2 - 4. According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below recorded the finding that petitioner is not the daughter of Manik Raj Devi is based on no evidence and, therefore, it is perverse. The extract of land ceiling case No.376 of 1973-74 was also filed along with other documentary evidences to prove the fact that the petitioner is the daughter of Bhagat Singh. The learned Court below only referred this land ceiling case but did not consider the effect on the same and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Court below is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent annexing the documents filed in the Court below on behalf of the respondents. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Dwivedi submitted that all the documentary evidences produced by the parties were considered by the Court below and then the Court below has recorded a finding that she is not the daughter and, therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reconsider the evidences, i.e., documentary evidences and substitute its own finding. The learned counsel submitted that the documents filed by the petitioner was prima facie found to be not genuine. Registered sale deeds executed by Manik Raj Devi were filed in the Court below which are ext. ‘B’ series in the counter affidavit. In the sale deeds executed by Manik Raj Devi, she has clearly admitted that she had no issue. She had also sworn affidavit ext. ‘C’ stating that she had no issue at all either son or daughter. The genealogical table issued by block ext. ‘D’ also shows that Bhagat Singh had no issue. The respondent also produced the marriage card of the - 3 - petitioner wherein she has been shown daughter of Surendra Kumar. According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below considered these documents and then recorded a finding. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has considered the documentary evidences produced by the parties and then recorded this finding. I have gone through the documents produced before this Court also. It cannot be said that no prudent man can arrive at the finding recorded by the Court below on the basis of documents produced by the respondent. It also cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Court below is perverse. Moreover, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has no jurisdiction to reevaluate the evidences as that of appellate Court and substitute its own finding. Likewise, in supervisory jurisdiction the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence cannot be gone into. In the present case from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has examined the documentary evidences, i.e., the sale deeds executed by Manik Raj Devi whereas she has admitted that she has no issue, affidavit of Manik Raj Devi to the same effect, the genealogy supplied by the Block and also the marriage card of the petitioner. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna The 13thday of December, 2011 Sanjeev/N.A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)