Prem Devi and another vs Rohtash and another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs Prem Devi and her minor son Sombir have filed revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 26.07.2011(Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) moved by plaintiffs-petitioners for additional evidence.

Plaintiffs have challenged release deed and Will executed by Chhajju Ram, since deceased, inter alia on the ground that suit land was ancestral joint Hindu family property. To prove the same, the plaintiffs have produced excerpt in evidence.

The plaintiffs alleged in application Annexure P-3 that they want to produce copy of Jamabandi Panjam (initial jamabandi) of Khewat No.19 Khatoni Nos.151 to 160 and mutation No.16 of inheritance of Chandgi Ram in favour of Rajmal. The plaintiffs also want to summon Record Keeper with aforesaid record and Tek Ram retired Kanungo to prove the documents and to prove ancestral nature of the suit land. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned Order Annexure P-5. Which is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners want to produce revenue documents in additional evidence, which are not likely to be fabricated and therefore, proposed additional evidence should have been allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the suit land comprised of Khewat Nos.67, 68 and 69 and Khatoni Nos.101 to 106 and therefore, Jamabandi of Khewat No.19 Khatoni Nos.151 to 160 sought to be produced is not relevant. It was also pointed out that the plaintiffs have themselves mentioned in application Annexure P-3 that documents sought to be produced are per se admissible in evidence, but still the plaintiffs want to summon Record Keeper and Tek Ram retired Kanungo for which there is no justification. It was also contended that these documents were already in the knowledge of the plaintiffs and should have been produced when the plaintiffs led their evidence.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

In so far as examination of Record Keeper and retired Kanungo by way of additional evidence is concerned, no justification for the same is made out either in the application Annexure P-3 or during the course of arguments by counsel for the petitioners. However, insofar as production of Jamabandi and mutation in question is concerned, the same should have been allowed on payment of cost because the said documents are not likely to be fabricated. Certified copies of these documents are per se admissible in evidence and defendants/respondents would get opportunity to rebut the same. Insofar as Khewat number and Khatoni numbers are concerned, it would be for the plaintiffs to link the same form the documents sought to be produced with the suit land because in the intervening period Khewat and Khatoni numbers might have changed. If the plaintiffs are not able to link the same, obviously the plaintiffs would not gain anything by producing these documents.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order Annexure P-5 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application Annexure P-3 moved by plaintiffs-petitioners is allowed partly. Plaintiffs are permitted to produce certified copy of Jamabandi Panjam and mutation No.16 by way of additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/-as cost precedent. Defendants shall be granted opportunity by the trial Court to lead evidence in rebuttal of aforesaid additional evidence of the plaintiffs.