VIJAY CHAUDHARY Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31/03/2009 passed by the trial Court allowing plaintiff's prayer to lead secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Though the writ petition is belated, however, since learned Counsel for the petitioner has explained that an earlier writ petition was preferred in 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh along with necessary documents and also for the reason that the subject document has not yet been exhibited, this Court has heard learned Counsel for the petitioners on merits of the writ petition.

(2.) Plaintiff Devendra Kumar has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit land from Laxmi Bai D/o Samund Rawat by registered sale-deed dated 15/06/1998. Defendant No. 1 Kailash Sharma purchased Khasra No. 5/1 from the said Laxmi Bai by registered sale-deed dated 08/07/2002 and thereafter the said defendant No. 1 Kailash Sharma sold it to the present petitioners/defendant No. 2 & 3 by registered sale-deed dated 15/10/2003. According to the plaintiff Khasra number of the land purchased by Kailash Sharma which in turn was sold to the present petitioners, has been fraudulently changed in the sale-deed which creates a cloud on his title.

(3.) One Ashok Yadav is the grand son of Laxmi Bai. He is in possession of the original Rin pustika in which lands owned and possessed by Laxmi Bai is recorded. When Ashok Yadav was summoned as plaintiff's witness he did not bring the original sale-deed in his possession which necessitated the plaintiff to prefer the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.