SATNAM SINGH SHARMA Vs. TARLOKI NATH KALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS in two cross-suits pending in the trial Court have been consolidated. Satnam Singh petitioner is plaintiff in one of these suits while he is a defendant in the other. The common question involved in both these suits is whether Satnam Singh petitioner is the real owner of the plot of land which had been purchased from the Rehabilitation Authorities in 1949 in the name of Shri Tarloki Nath who is a defendant in both suits. Satnam Singh claimed that after the purchase of this plot he had constructed the building thereon at his own expense even though the plan had been got sanctioned in the name of Tarloki Nath. The latter has sold this house to Shri Madan Mohan by a registered deed in 1971. Shri Madan Mohan is the plaintiff in one of these cross suits while he is a co-defendant with Tarloki Nath in the other suit.

(2.) THE trial Court had framed an omnibus issue in both these suits which placed the burden on Satnam Singh of proving that the plot had been purchased by him benami in the name of Tarloki Nath. That issue was wide enough to embrace most of the points in controversy as also Satnam Singh's plea that he had constructed the house on the plot in dispute and had borne the expenses even though the plan had been got sanctioned in the name of Tarloki Nath. This plea had not been made the subject-matter of a separate issue. Issues had also not been framed with regard to some preliminary objections taken by Satnam Singh in the suit in which he was one of the defendants.

(3.) SATNAM Singh had, therefore, filed separate applications in the two suits under Order XIV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the framing of the additional issues arising from his pleadings. Both these applications had been allowed by the trial Court and additional issues had been framed in the two cases. He was ordered to pay Rs. 30/- as costs which have been accepted by the counsel for the opposite party. Satnam Singh, however, feels aggrieved by the trial Court's direction that the additional evidence to be examined by the parties would be confined only to the documents which had been placed on the record up to that stage. This direction has already led to the rejection by the trial Court of some registered sale deeds that had been produced by a witness examined by the petitioner, after the amendments of the issues, in order to prove that he had been making sales of his property from time to time to raise funds for the construction of the building on the plot in dispute after it was purchased from the Rehabilitation Authorities in 1949. Satnam Singh has, therefore, filed revision petitions Nos. 1479 and 1480 of 1973 against the rejection of these registered sale deeds when there could be no serious doubt about their authenticity or genuineness.