LAL SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that in earlier litigation in respect of the property in dispute in the present proceedings it was held that the defendant-appellant was not adopted by Inder Singh who was admittedly the owner of the suit property. It was further found that the afore-mentioned Inder Singh did not execute any valid will in favour of the defendant- appellant bequeathing his property including the property in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent has produced a copy of the judgment dated 17.1.1992 in C.A. No. 1 of 1987 Ex. PA/1. In the afore-mentioned proceedings there were three specific issues raised before the learned Civil Judge, Barnala which were as under :

(2.) ALL the afore-mentioned issues were decided against the defendant-appellant and the findings were affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment Ex. P1/A. No further appeal was disclosed to have been filed by the defendant- appellant which led to the presumption by the Courts below that the judgment dated 17.1.1992 Ex. P1/A had attained finality. The afore-mentioned judgment has been held to be relevant under Section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further reliance has also been placed on a copy of the voters list Ex. P-3 for the year 1993 in respect of village Mulowal. The name of the defendant-appellant figures in that list. The afore-mentioned factual position has also been conceded by the defendant-appellant that earlier to 1999 he used to reside at village Mulowal. The afore-mentioned evidence would lead to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant was not adopted by Inder Singh nor he ever lived with Inder Singh since his childhood.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below further went on to hold that the site plan prepared by the plaintiff-respondent by visiting the spot would not be considered as a proof of title yet it would support and corroborate the statements made by other witnesses of the plaintiff-respondent that she has been residing in the village.