Effect of admission of coparcener that he has no interest in the property of HUF

[bpagrawal]

Effect of admission of coparcener that he has no interest in the property of joint family

We think, however, that the statements could be admitted under section 32 (3)of the Evidence Act. The statements of a particular person that he is separated from a joint family, of which he was a copar- cener, and that he has no further interest in the joint property or claim to any assets left by his father, would be statements made against the interest of such per- son, and, after such person is dead, they would be relevant under section 32(3) of the Evidence Act. The assertion that there was separation not only in respect of himself but between all the coparceners would be admissible as a con- nected matter and an integral part of the same statement (Vide Blackburn J. in Smith v. Blakey(1). It is not merely the precise fact which is against interest that is admissi- ble but all matters that are "involved in it and knit up with the statement." See Wigmore on Evidence, Art. 1465. We agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that Exhibits 2, 2(a) and 2(b) taken together afford most satisfactory evidence of there being a separation (1) L.R. 2 Q.B. 326.

amongst all the sons of Sheo Narain and that they show further that the separation took place during Sheo Narain's lifetime. This conclusion is fortified by the recitals in several other documents which were executed during this period. In fact, prior to 1905 the
//http://www.lawweb.in/2013/03/effect-of-admission-of-coparcener-that.html