DIDAR SINGH Vs. SARBJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DIDAR Singh filed a suit for possession of some agricultural land against Sarbjit singh and his mother Ravel Kaur. In the plaint, Sarbjit Singh was described as son of Ravel Kaur wife of Gurpal Singh and Ravel Kaur as wife of Gurpal Singh. The case of the defendants, however, was that Ravel Kaur was the wife of Didar Singh, plaintiff, and Sarbjit Singh was his son through her.

(2.) AFTER trial, the suit was decreed on 26th November, 1970. Towards the close of the judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge observed as under:-" before parting with this judgment, I would also deal with the application under Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code moved by the defendants against the plaintiff. It was stated that the plaintiff had given false evidence that the defendants were not his son and wife respectively, although he had been previously admitting their relationship with him. It is true that the plaintiff in his statement as P. W. 2 denied that defendant no. 1 is his son and defendant No. 2 is his wife. The question is can it be said that he had committed perjury. The question of relationship of the plaintiff with the defendant was not directly in issue. At the same time there can be no doubt that the relationship of the defendants with the plaintiff was a relevant fact so as to arrive at the correct conclusion on issue No. 1. The defendants' case was that the suit land had been given to them by the plaintiff by way of maintenance as they bore special relationship with the plaintiff. But for that relationship the plaintiff would not possibly have given any land to them by way of maintenance. Thus the question of relationship was a relevant fact. the plaintiff was interested in denying that fact in the suit. The defendants had produced certified copy of the statement made by the plaintiff in a case State v. Sarbjit Singh, under Sections 324/506, 148/149 I. P. C. , decided on 20-167 by Shri Niranjan Singh JMIC Batala. He admitted defendant No. 1 to be his son but the plaintiff was not confronted with this statement when he appeared as P. W. 2. Any how it would appear from Exhibit P-1, P-3, p-4 and P-5 copies of the Jamabandi produced and relied upon by the plaintiff himself that defendant No. 1 was his son and defendant No. 2 was his wife. The plaintiff had never challenged those entries. Rather he had relied upon those entries to defeat the defendants' claim in the suit. He was interested in denying in this suit that the defendants bore any relationship with him. He was not even prepared to tell as to who was the father of defendant No. 1 and who was the husband of defendant no. 2, although it is admitted that Gurpal Singh was his brother. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the plaintiff had intentionally given false evidence while appearing as P. W. 2 in judicial proceedings and as such he had perjured himself. I, therefore, think it expedient in the interest of justice and for the eradication of the evils of perjury that the plaintiff Didar Singh (P. W. 2) should be prosecuted for having committed an offence of giving false evidence. As such I direct that he should be proceeded against and a complaint be instituted against him. "

(3.) AGAINST the concluding portion of this judgment, the present revision petition has been filed by Didar Singh.