HARI OM Vs. NIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit challenging sale-deeds executed by Jagan Nath, father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants on the ground that the sale-deeds were void. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff along with his father formed a Joint Hindu Family and the land in dispute was coparcenary property of the Joint Hindu Family. The parties were stated to be governed by Mitakshra law. The vendees contested the suit on the ground that alienations were for consideration and legal necessity. The coparcenary nature of the land was denied. The alienations were stated to be for the benefit of the family and were described to be acts of good management. On the basis of pleas taken by the plaintiff and the defendants, following issues were framed :-

(2.) The findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed in appeal before the first Appellate Court. The plaintiff has come up in Regular Second Appeal before this Court.

(3.) It has been argued at the very outset that the Courts below have committed a legal error in holding that the plaintiff is not proved to be the son of the vendor. It has been argued by Mr. R.K. Battas, counsel for the appellant that the copy of application form Exhibit PW-7/1 and copy of entry in admission register Exhibit PW-7/2 are sufficient to record a finding that the plaintiff is proved to be the son of the vendor. After hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the Courts below on the basis of evidence led should have held that the plaintiff is proved to be the son of the vendor. Once there is an entry in the admission register in which the plaintiff is clearly recorded to be the son of Jagan Nath, it is too much to say that such an entry will not be relied upon simply because the man who made the entry has not stepped into the witness box. It has been held in several judicial pronouncements that certified copies of admission register without the production of the person who has made the entry is sufficient to connect the person in whose favour entry is made. Moreover, this entry was made in the ordinary course when there was no dispute regarding the parentage of the plaintiff. In my considered opinion there is no need to go into any other evidence in order to record the finding that the plaintiff is proved to be the son of the vendor. In fact, the counsel for the vendee also had no serious objection to the reversal of the finding on the point of parentage.