MALKHAN SINGH Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. A short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the findings recorded by the Courts below on the issue concerning identity of land are vitiated on account of categorical documentary evidence in the form of mutation Ex. PW P/A which clearly establishes the identity of the suit land. BRIEF FACTS

(2.) ONE Jaggan was owner and in possession as co-sharer/joint owner of the land to the extent of 1/2 share bearing Khewat No. 11-12 Khatoni No. 17-18, Rect. No. 116(0-13) Ghair Mumkin Abadi and Khewat No. 10 Khatoni No. 14 Rect. No. 117(1-3 Marlas) situated in Village Mandhawali Tehsil Ballabgarh. He had a son named Khacheru. Jaggan suffered a judgment and a decree in his favour on 30.10.1980 (Exs. P-3 and P-4). The judgment and decree Exs. P-3 and P-4 led to sanction of mutation in favour of the son, Khacheru which in Ex. P-6. Subsequently Jaggan again suffered a judgment and decree Exhibits P-8 and P-9 dated 20.9.1984 in favour of defendant-respondent Deep Chand which led to the sanctioning of mutation in his favour being Exs. PW9/A dated 2.12.1988.

(3.) IN the written statement, defendant-respondent No. 1 broadly denied the assertions made by the plaintiff-appellant. It was claimed that the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1984 Ex. P-8 and P-9 and the mutation dated 2.11.1988 was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, they were not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. A replication was also filed by the plaintiff-appellant to the written statement filed by the defendant-respondent No. 1 reiterating the assertions made in the plaint. It is pertinent to mention that defendant-respondents despite service did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte.