Mithan Lal, J.
1. This second appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge who by his order dated the 27th September, 1957 referred it to a bench, because an important question of law arose in the case.
2. Briefly stated, the fads are that the appellant decree-holder obtained a simple money decree for Rs. 610 besides costs and future interest against the assets of Smt. Kusma Kunwar deceased in the hands of Hira, Gopal and Budhiram, some time in 1956. This decree was. put in execution and a house was attached stating that the house was the asset of Kusma Kunwar. Budhiram respondent filed an objection stating that the house did not belong to Kusma Kunwar nor was it a part of the assets left by her. This objection has found favour with both the Courts below. It has been held that the house did not belong to Kusma Kunwar and was not liable to attachment and sale. It was against these concurrent findings of fact that the present appeal was filed.
3. It appears that the decree-holder relied upon three copies of statements made by Kusma Kunwar, Gulab and Budhiram objector in earlier proceedings. The Courts below rejected the statements of Kusma Kunwar and Gulab because they were inconsistent and did not prove that Kusma Kunwar was the owner. The: statement of Budhiram objector was also not relied upon by the lower appellatecourt on the ground that Budhiram having entered the witness-box, the statement was not put to him and consequently it could not be; relied upon. This view of the learned Judge has been challenged in this appeal.
4. Sri K. B. Lal, learned Advocate for the appellant, has contended that the statement made by Budhiram, a copy of which is Ex. 3 on record, was admitted by Budhiram's counsel and so it was not necessary for the decree-holder to put the statement to Budhiram at the time of his deposition, in support of this argument the learned counsel has relied upon the Full Bench authority of Ajodhya Prasad v. Bhawani Shankar, (S) AIR 1957 All 1.
Sri Sripat Narain, learned counsel for the respondent, has, on the other hand, contended that Budhiram's statement was admitted subject to all just exceptions within the meaning of Order 12, Rule 2, C. P. C., only for the purpose of doing away with the formal proof of the document. It was not admitted to make that statement admissible in evidence for purposes of evidentiary value under the Indian Fvidence Act. According to him the Full Bench authority has no application because there was no unqualified admission of the document.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the case is not covered by the said Full Bench Authority. The admission of the document which has been made in this case by the learned counsel for Budhiram is worded : 'Admitted subject to all just exceptions'. The learned counsel in admitting the document repeated the language of Rule 2 of Order 12, C. P. C. This only means that the admission of the learned counsel did away with the formal proof of the document but it did not do away with the requirement of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act a witness has to be cross-examined as to his previous statement. If it is intended to contradict the witness by any previous writing, it is necessary to draw his attention to such writing. In particular his attention should be drawn to those specific parts of the statement on which reliance is placed and which show contradiction between his previous and the present statements, The requirement of this section was not done away with by the learned counsel while admitting the document subject to all just exceptions. If it was intended that the statement of Budhiram should be relied upon in order to contradict him, it was necessary that the relevant portion of the. document should have been put. to him when' he was in the witness-box.
In the Full Bench case of Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava, (S) AIR 1957 All 1 (FB), the most material thing was that the document which contained the admission was admitted without any exception and it was on the basis of such admission that two of the Judges of the Full Bench hold that in such a case where a previous admission is admitted by the counsel it is not obligatory on the party who produces the document to draw in cross-examination the attention of the opponent to the said admission. The view taken by the two Judges was dissented from by V. Bhargava, J. who thought that even in such a case it was. necessary that the witness should be contradicted with his previous statement under the provisions of law.
In the instant case there being no unqualified admission of the previous statement of Budhiram, it was necessary for the counsel of the decree-holder, if it was intended to rely upon the previous statement, to contradict Budhiram with his previous statement at the time of cross-examination. This not having been done, that statement could not be relied upon to show that Budhiram could not say that the house did not belong to Smt. Kusma Kunwar. We, therefore, find that the lower appellate Court committed no error in placing no reliance upon the previous statement of Budhiram. Both the Courts below in fact came to the conclusion on the basis of the entire evidence that the house did not belong to Kusma Kunwar. Consequently it could not be treated to to the asset of Kusma Kunwar for realisation of the decretal amount.
6. This appeal must fail and it is dismissed withcosts.