Sansar Chand vs Gurbax Singh and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff against the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:

Whether impugned judgments and decrees stand vitiated on account of reading Ext.D1 in evidence, without the same having been proved in accordance with the law?

Whether revenue entries basis of which admittedly are wrong can be considered in evidence specifically when the same have been passed in favour of dead person and still are continuing in favour of a dead person?

Precisely the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated that the Plaintiff Sansar Chand (Appellant herein) had filed a suit against the Respondents hereinafter referred to be as "the Defendants" seeking declaration with a consequential prayer of injunction qua the suit land, on the ground that the suit land to the extent of half share has been in his exclusive possession as a co sharer and the entries showing the Plaintiff as seller in favour of one Sant Ram and through him, Defendants'' father Chint Ram shown as ''Gair-Marushi'' are merely paper entries as no such person Sant Ram had ever resided in village Nanon, thus question of inducting the father of the Defendants Chint Ram as tenant did not arise at all. It is also contended that the Defendants on the basis of wrong entries started unwarranted interference in the suit land, as such consequential relief of injunction was also claimed. A prayer was also made in alternative for possession. Further that Chint Ram, had expired about 20 years back and the entry of his name which is continuing in the revenue record is also wrong.

The Defendants made a strong resistance to the suit filed by the Plaintiff, as such they filed written statement raising preliminary objections of limitation, estoppel, vis-�-vis its maintainability and also questioned the locus-stands of the Plaintiff to file the present suit. It is the case of the Defendants that the suit land was purchased by the father of the Defendants from the father of the Plaintiff vide registered Sale deed dated 21.4.1953, on the basis of which, mutation was also attested and subsequent entries were made in his name and the revenue entries showing the name of Plaintiff are incorrect and not binding upon them. The Defendants claimed their ownership and possession over the suit land and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

In replication, preliminary objections were denied and even paras on merits were reaffirmed.

On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the Plaintiff is co-sharer to the extent of 1/2 share of the suit land, as alleged ?...OPP.

Whether the revenue entry showing the Defendants as Gair Maroosi are illegal, null & void and are liable to be corrected ?...OPP.

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession, as alleged?...OPP.

Whether Plaintiff has no locus-stands to sue ?...OPD.

Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?...OPD.

Whether the Plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit ?...OPD.

Whether the suit is not within time ?...OPD.

Whether the Plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ?...OPD.

Whether the Defendants are owners-in-possession of the suit land, as alleged ?...OPD.

Relief.

Learned trial Court on the complete trial returned the findings on Issue No. 1 against the Plaintiff, consequently, Issue No. 2 was disposed of, whereas Issues No. 3 and 7 were answered in negative and Ors. in affirmative, resultantly, the suit was dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, Plaintiff challenged it before the learned First Appellate Court, precisely on the grounds that the father of the Plaintiff never sold the suit land and house etc. till his death to anyone as alleged. Further that certified copy of the Sale deed Ex.D-1 was wrongly exhibited in evidence and the revenue entries do not confer any right, title or interest on the Defendants.

The learned First Appellate Court went to the evidence on record in depth. Finding substance in the plea raised by the Defendants dismissed the appeal of the Plaintiff, hence the present appeal.

Shri Ajay Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff vehemently argued that both the Courts below have committed an error while admitting said document in evidence and he was wrongly non-suited.

I have considered the aforesaid arguments. The whole case hinges upon the claim of the Defendants on the basis of the Sale Deed (Ext.D-1) alleged to have been executed on 21.4.1953. Plaintiff in his cross-examination expressed the ignorance of this document and also suit land having been sold by his father to the Defendants'' father. He also showed ignorance regarding the attestation of the mutation, on the basis of the Sale Deed. Similar is the statement made by PW2 Rattan Singh. Significantly, PW3 Kashmir Singh, Pradhan admitted the fact of the sale of the house and the land in question in favour of the father of the Defendants.

Contra, the Defendant Inder Singh (DW1) placed on record the attested copy of Sale Deed (Ext.D�1) and the subsequent Jamabandi w.e.f. 1952-53 (Ext.D-2) to 1991-92 (Ext.D-5) and copy of Misal Hakiat (Ext.D-6) and also Copy of Mutation (Ext.D-7) showing the entries in the name of the Defendants, which was attested and accepted on 26.9.1994 on the basis of the Sale Deed (Ext.D-1) aforesaid. These entries coupled with the statements of the witnesses of the Defendants with respect to the possession proved their case. The Courts below took the aforesaid evidence into consideration and held that the Sale Deed (Ext.D-1) has come from a proper custody i.e. from the office of the Registrar, Kangra, where the original Sale-Deed was registered. The said document being 30 years old, the presumption of correctness attaches to it, as having been produced from the proper custody. Not only this, the said Sale Deed was acted upon as Mutation Ext.D-7 on its basis was accepted during the life time of the father of the Plaintiff himself.

Thus, in view of the concurrent findings of facts, in my opinion, no interference in the present Regular Second Appeal is called for as no question of law much less the substantial questions of law arises for its determination, as such, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

No other point is urged.

The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Send down the records.