JAI PAL Vs. BANWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the land in dispute. Petitioner claimed himself to be owner in possession. The suit was filed by the petitioner against his father and his real brothers on the basis of agreement dated 16.5.1986 executed by Banwari defendant respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in favour of Jai Pal vide which the respondent No. 1 gave 1/5th the agricultural land and other movable and immovable properties to his son Jai Pal petitioner and in turn the petitioner made he payment of Rs. 8000/- towards he expenses of marriage of his unmarried daughter.

(2.) Respondents in their written statesman did not specifically denied the execution of the agreement dated 16.5.1986 and their reply was to the effect that there was no agreement dated 16.5.1986 as alleged in he plant and if there was any such agreement in existence and in possession of the plaintiff then the same is bogus and not binding on the rights of the defendant-respondents.

(3.) Plaintiff closed his evidence in the affirmative on 20.8.1990 and thereafter defendants closed their evidence. On stopping into the witness box, the respondent denied his signatures on the agreements dated 16.5.1986 Petitioner filed an application for additional evidence wherein it was alleged that the respondent when appeared as DW 1 denied the execution of he agreement dated 16.5.1986 and, therefore, it had become necessary to get the signatures of defendant No. 1 on the document compared with the admitted signatures of the defendant-respondent from a Finger Print Expert. Petitioners requested that he may be allowed to get the sample signatures of respondent No.1 and to get the same compared from the Finger Print Expert. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner should have produced the evidence regarding the execution of the agreement dated 16.5.1989 while leading his evidence in the affirmative. Since the petitioner failed to exercise his due diligence, he could not be permitted to produced the additional evidence at a later stage, specially when the defendant had also closed his evidence.