1. In a recent case under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reported in JT (Judgment Today) 1999 (4) SC at page 589, the Supreme Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of a Hindu female who died intestate inherited by her daughters, in the case of one of the daughters dying later, would devolve upon the other surviving daughters i.e. sisters of that deceased daughter and not upon the heirs of the pre-deceased husband of the deceased daughter.

2. Supreme Court has now in a recently decided case reported in JT (Judgment Today) 1999(4) SC at page 496 held that the power of the Court is plenary i.e. absolute to summon or even re-call any witness at any stage of the case if the Court considers it necessary for a just reason. Their Lordships have observed to the effect that objections, to re-call a witness under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 165 of the Evidence Act by saying that the Court could not feel a lacuna in a case, were common. A lacuna is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed during trial either in producing relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from witnesses. The adage "to err is human" is the recognition of the possibility of making mistakes to which humans are proned. A corollary of any such mistakes or latches during the conducting of a case cannot be understood as the lacuna which a Court cannot fill up. No party in a trial can be forclosed for correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.

Site Designed, Maintained and Updated by Netziners Solutions

Email: enquiry@netziners.com