(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of two courts below while decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondents. The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to hand -over the vacant possession of the property in dispute on the ground that he was owner of the property in question. It was pleaded that defendant being close relative of plaintiff was allowed to occupy the house in dispute as a licensee at a nominal license fee. It was agreed between the parties that defendant would vacate the house as when required by plaintiff. As the plaintiff required the house in dispute for personal necessity, he requested the defendant to vacate the same. Despite repeated requests, defendant failed to vacate which necessitated the plaintiff to file the instant suit.
(2.) UPON notice, defendant filed the written statement and denied the ownership of house in dispute. He admitted that house was allotted to plaintiff but the same was gifted to him on 15.05.1970 vide gift -deed which was also got registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Patiala on 18.05.1970. Possession thereof was also delivered to him. According to him, he availed loan from his department and got the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee for raising construction. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and evidence was adduced. Trial court on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the house in dispute within three months. Defendant preferred an appeal. Findings arrived at by the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court and appeal was dismissed. Hence the instant appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4, however, opposed the plea and submitted that gift -deed was dated 15.05.1970 and had not become 30 years old by the time it was tendered in evidence. Thus, section 90 of the Act would not be attracted. In support of the case, plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and placed on record copy of the sale certificate Ex. P1 issued in his favour. He led no other evidence. In order to rebut the evidence led by plaintiff, defendant himself stepped into the witness box as DW1 and examined five witnesses. A witness Gurdev Singh, an official of Municipal Corporation, Patiala appeared as DW2 and proved the sanctioned plan for construction/alteration of house in name of the defendant. A hand -writing expert appeared as DW3 to compare disputed signatures of plaintiff on the gift -deed with his standard signatures. He also proved report Ex. D4. Scribe of the gift -deed Ex. D2 namely Om Parkash appeared as DW4 and registration clerk working in the office of Sub Registrar, Patiala appeared as DW5 and deposed with regard to registration of gift -deed. Trial court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any deposition of attesting witnesses, gift -deed could not be believed. Admittedly, all the witnesses of the gift -deed have since expired. Defendant failed to examine any person who could verify signatures of attesting witnesses on the gift -deed. It was, thus, not possible to place reliance on such a document. Defendant having failed to prove execution of gift -deed, trial court decreed the suit. Findings were affirmed by the appellate court. Only plea raised before this court is that gift -deed being more than 30 years old, it was per se admissible in evidence and same was not required to be proved. I am not convinced with this argument. According to findings recorded by two courts below, gift -deed had not become 30 years old by 14.10.1999 when it was tendered in evidence. No substantial question of law is involved warranting interference of this court in concurrent findings of two courts below. Dismissed.