PUHAP SINGH ALIAS SHAMBHU Vs. NAINSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by defendant No. 2 Puhap Singh alias Shambhu Prasad under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court by order dated 26 -8 -1989 at the time of admission of this appeal:

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the question referred to above are that Nain Singh filed the suit for declaration of his title and joint possession in the lands in dispute. The plaintiff's claim was that he was legitimate son of defendant No. 2 Puhap Singh alias Shambhu and therefore, he was also entitled to these lands. The defendant Nos. 1 to 10 filed the written statement. They admitted in para 6 of the written statement that Parvatibai was married wife of defendant No. 2 Puhap Singh alias Shambhu Prasad but it was pleaded that after 2 -3 months of her marriage she went to her father's place and lived there for one year and plaintiff Nain Singh was born to her during this period. She came to the house of the defendant No. 2 at the time of the death of his father in the month of Phalgun and at that time she was pregnant. She gave birth to Nain Singh in the month of Bhado in his house. In the written statement an offer was made on behalf of the defendants that even now if Parvatibai says in the Court by holding Gangajal and Ramayan that Nain Singh is son of Shambhu he is prepared to accept him. .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) THE Trial Court on the basis of the unchallenged testimony of Parvatibai held that plaintiff Nain Singh is son of Puhap Singh alias Shambhu Prasad and decreed the suit for declaration of title and joint possession.