THANDI RAM B LRS. Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 25.8.1980 rendered by the District Judge, Bhiwani, dismissing the appeal of the defendants appellants and affirming the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the respondent plaintiff.

(2.) THE respondent plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this appeal stating that he was in exclusive possession of land measuring 15 bighas 10 biswas giving threat of being dispossessed by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. The defendants contested the suit only with regard 6 bighas 10 biswas land which was claimed to be in possession of defendant No. 1. The Trial Court, relying upon the statement of PW -1 plaintiff and PW -2, PW -3, PW -4, Ex.P -1 Jamabandi for the year 1968 -69, Ex. P -2 Khasra Girdawari 1975 -79 and Ex. P -3 Khasra Girdawari 1966 -70 held that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit land. The defendants relied upon Khasra Girdawari entry Ex. D -1 from 1975 to 1979 whereby, the entry was ordered to be changed in the name of defendants for 6 bighas 10 biswas. The defendant also relied upon order dated 6.8.1979 whereby the Assistant Collector had ordered the changing of name of the Khasra Girdawari. The Trial Court decreed the suit without giving any weight to order dated 6.8.1979 and the changed khasra Girdawari Ex. D -1. The appellant preferred an appeal and while affirming the decree of the trial court, the lower appellate Court refused to consider the order dated 6.8.1979 on the ground that certified copy thereof had not been produced.

(3.) I am of the view that the lower appellate court was justified in rejecting the application for additional evidence in absence of a certified copy. Uncertified copy could not be admitted in additional/evidence, even, if a case for leading additional evidence was made out. Even in the second appeal, the appellants had not made any effort to produce the certified copy of the order sought to be relied upon as additional evidence. In the absence of said order, merely on the basis of Ex. D -1 recording a change of Khasra Girdawari, the appellants cannot be said to have proved that the evidence of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit land stood rebutted. In this view of the matter, none of the decisions cited is applicable.