HARNEK SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal by defendant no. 2 Harnek Singh having lost in both the courts below. Suit was filed by respondents no. 1 to 3/plaintiffs against appellant and respondents no. 4 to 7. Plaintiffs claimed that they along with defendant no. 5 Achhar Singh, being sons and daughters of Bagga Singh, are owners in possession of the suit house being their ancestral house, having inherited it from their father Bagga Singh. One room out of it was given on licence to defendant no. 3 � Amarjit Singh and has since been got vacated from him. However, defendant no. 1 executed sale deed dated 22.5.1985 in favour of defendant no. 2 regarding the suit house. The said sale deed is null and void. Defendant no. 1 was neither owner nor in possession of the suit house. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought declaration that they along with defendant no. 5 are owners in possession of the suit house and aforesaid sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 shall not bind them and shall have no effect on their rights. Relief of permanent injunction against defendants no. 1 to 4 was also claimed.

(2.) DEFENDANTS no. 1 to 4 in their written statement pleaded that defendant no. 1 was owner of the suit house. He has rightly sold it to defendant no. 2 vide sale deed dated 22.5.1985. Now defendant no. 2 is owner of the suit house. It was pleaded that plaintiffs' father Bagga Singh was in possession of portion of the suit house as tenant under defendant no. 1 whereas remaining portion was in possession of defendant no. 3 as tenant under defendant no. 1. Various other pleas were raised.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant contended that Bagga Singh had executed rent note in favour of defendant no. 1. However, said rent note has not been proved. Defendant no. 2 had moved application for additional evidence in the trial court to examine Fingerprint Expert to prove the said rent note, but the said application was declined by the trial court and rightly so. Defendant no. 2 pleaded that the said rent note was not earlier in his possession because it was in possession of defendant no. 1 and therefore, Fingerprint Expert could not be examined earlier. However, this plea was rightly discarded because defendants no. 1 to 4 were contesting the suit together and rent note had even been produced earlier by them at appropriate stage and therefore, there was no reason for not examining Fingerprint Expert at the appropriate stage. Now after lapse of 25 years, the appellant cannot be permitted to prove alleged rent note by way of additional evidence because he did not prove the same at appropriate stage despite having opportunity to do so.