Jagir Singh vs Gurmel Singh and Others

Kiran Anand Lall, J.—Both the courts below have non-suited the appellant in respect of his claim pertaining to ownership as well as possession over the suit property for the last more than 50 years. The suit filed by him was for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing him therefrom.

The respondents, who mostly consist of brothers or nephews of the appellant denied his claim, by pleading that they all (including the appellant) are in joint possession, as co-sharers of the suit property which was jointly constructed by them. The learned trial court, on the basis of the evidence which had come on record, found no merit in the claim of the appellant and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, too, did not differ with the trial court, affirmed its verdict, and dismissed the appeal. The conclusion drawn by the trial court was that, "so the plaintiff has no right to protect possessory title as possession of the plaintiff has not been proved on the file." Similarly, the learned first appellate court, after appreciating the evidence, observed that, "the conclusion drawn by this Court is that plaintiff could not prove the possession over the suit property nor he has proved his title over the suit property."

The two courts have drawn the said conclusion, after scrutinising the testimony of the appellant (PW2) and his witness Balwinder Singh (PW1), wherein it is to be found that the suit property is shamlat property. Moreover, the appellant had filed a private criminal complaint against the respondents, during the trial of which he admitted, in his statement recorded in court on 2.12.1999, certified copy Ex.D1, that possession of the property in question had been taken by the respondentsherein (accused in the complaint).

The argument of the learned Counsel that Ex.D1 could not be taken into consideration as it was not proved as per law, has to be just brushed aside in view of the clear provision, contained in Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:

Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence.- Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorised by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume--

that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.

No substantial question of law arises in this appeal, which shall, therefore, stand dismissed, in limine.