SUBE SINGH Vs. LOKU RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Lal Chand Sharma, PW 4 had admitted in his cross-examination that he was seeing the shop in dispute for the last 20 years and previously it was a kacha shop and it stood built on kacha land and that in that field it was the first shop which had been built. He further admitted that the shop was already in existence and was being used as a piau when this land was purchased by Loku Ram. On the basis of the said evidence, learned counsel for the appellant has built an argument that this evidence demolished the whole case of the other side and, therefore, they being bound by the testimony of their own evidence, the suit could not be decided in their favour.

(2.) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through paras 7 and 10 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court wherein testimony of this witness has been disbelieved in view of Exhibits p1 to p6. He has also referred to rent note Ex. PF wherein it has been mentioned that the shop had been constructed within a period of one month.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that these documents have not been connected with the shop in dispute and Ex. PA having held to be not admissible in evidence could not be looked into even for the recital as contained in item No. 2 thereof.