SIS RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complains that the Financial Commissioner had erred in passing, an order dated November 19, 1998. By this order, the clam of the respondents for rendition of accounts filed against the petitioner has been accepted.

(2.) Mr. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is contrary to the statement made by Chander Singh, the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Admittedly, the parties own 366 Kanals 9 Marias of land. Chander Singh claimed half -share in this property. During he course of the statement, he alleged that he was in cultivating possession of only 66 Kanals. The remaining land was being cultivated by Sis Ram etc. since Kharif 1982. Thus, it is clear that the basic allegation of the plaintiff -respondent was that the present petitioner was in possession of area in excess of his share. On this basis, it was claimed that he was liable to render the accounts and pay the dues. In view of the categorical statement of the 2nd respondent, the contention that the decision is contrary to the evidence on record cannot be sustained.