BALIHAR SINGH Vs. SARABJIT KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No.8236-C of 2011 in RSA No.2990 of 2011

(2.) The appellants-defendants are aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff Bachittar Singh against his father-defendant Nos.2 and other defendants seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1990 to be declared as void, illegal, non est, inoperative and not biding upon his rights and liable to be set aside in respect of the land described hereunder:-

(3.) Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Samaya Singh and Ms. Japneet Kaur, Advocates submits that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to lead evidence, much less, the Courts below have failed to notice that the documentary evidence brought on record is only with regard to the estate of Ghanaya, father of Swaran Singhdefendant No.2 but not of three generations and the plaintiff being the 4 th generation only would have a right by birth. The mutation Ex.P29 and jamabandi Ex.P28 only prove the land in the hands of Ghanaya and not Chetu Ram, great grand father of the plaintiff and therefore, requirements of law as per para 221 of 21 st Edition of Mulla Hindu Law, have not been complied with and the Courts below have erroneously set aside the judgment and decree, in essence, the onus has not been discharged, thus, the findings rendered by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside by formulating the substantial questions of law as drawn in the memorandum of appeal.