BELO DEVI Vs. URMILA DEVI ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner -plaintiff, is to the order dated 03.03.2011, whereby the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Panipat has dismissed the application to lead evidence on issues No. 2 & 2 -A, in rebuttal, in the suit instituted on 03.01.2004 or in the alternative, as additional evidence. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is that since the onus of issue No. 2 -A was on the plaintiff, he could not lead evidence in rebuttal. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in Surjit Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537 and Jagdev Singh & others Vs. Darshan Singh & others : 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 794.

(2.) IN order to decide whether the said order is justified or not, it would necessarily entail delving into the facts as to what was the dispute between the parties before coming to the finding whether the Trial Court was right in placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court, referred above.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the suit by taking various pleas that the suit was time -barred and the plaintiff herself was a witness to the said gift deed and had knowledge from the very beginning of the fact of Barfi Devi coming into the possession of the property and the suit had only been filed with mala fide intention and the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct. Barfi Devi had resided with her mother, Chandro Devi along with her son and served her in the old age and she had died on 10.04.1997 and not in 1998, as alleged. No particulars of fraud and collusion had been given and it was wrong that Chandro Devi, the mother intended to gift the entire property in favour of Barfi Devi. The plaintiff had lived with her in -laws and never served her mother and due to the service of Barfi Devi, the gift deed had been executed in the presence of the witnesses including the plaintiff and mutation had also been entered and sanctioned in her favour on that basis and Barfi Devi had come in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff was a witness to the registration of the gift deed and had put her thumb impression and the registration of the gift deed was done in the presence of the witnesses. It was denied that some other person had executed the gift deed in place of Chandro Devi and the gift deed was registered with her own accord and without any pressure.