DAYA RAM Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Additional Com­missioner dated 12-5-93 in which learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the learned trial Court dated 27-5-89 in which learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act was filed by Dhani Ram and Ahibaran sons of Durga against Daya Ram on the ground that Malkhan was the original tenure-holder of plot No. 182 area 1.68 acres and being the near relative of Malkhan. Malkhan has executed a registered Will in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant on the basis of a forged Will dated 25-7-83 has applied for mutation and concerned Naib Tahsildar has mutated the name of defen­dant Daya Ram on the basis of forged Will deed. Being aggrieved by this order plain­tiff has filed a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act. This suit was decreed on 27-5-89 and Dhani Ram plain­tiffs/respondent were declared as bhumid-har of the disputed plot. Being aggrieved by this order of the trial Court the defen­dant Daya Ram has filed first appeal No. 276 of 88-89 which was dismissed on 12-5-93. After dismissal of the first appeal this second appeal has been filed by Daya Ram defendant/appellant.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Malkhan has died on 26-7-83. In support of death of Malkhan appellant has filed certified copy of Kutumb Register but without assigning any sufficient reason this important piece of evidence was discarded by both the Courts below. Both the Courts have ac­cepted the registered Will. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the ap­pellant that appellant's Will is earlier and the Will executed in favour of the respon­dent is later Will. According to the version of the appellant Malkhan has died on 26-7-83. Therefore, the registered Will filed by the respondent is forged. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the ap­pellant that Kutumb Register is admissible in evidence and the reasons for discarding the Kutumb Register is against law.