RAJBIR SINGH Vs. VIRENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is unsuccessful plaintiffs regular second appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against Chhatter Singh, his father, and others to the effect that the decree dated 25. 4. 1986 suffered by Chhatter Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 is illegal, null and void. It was stated that he is in possession of the property and in case he is not found to be in possession of the property, decree for possession be passed.

(2.) THE matter was contested by the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed and due opportunities were afforded by the trial Court to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The suit was dismissed primarily on the ground that there is no proof on record that the property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Chhatter Singh.

(3.) IT is the grievance of the appellant that his application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') which was ordered to be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal has, however, not been decided by the lower appellate Court and so on this ground alone the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is liable to be reversed. Elaborating the counsel urged that the documents sought to be adduced on record (copies of revenue record), if considered, clearly prove that the suit land was ancestral in nature in the hands of Chhatter Singh, la which the plaintiff-appellant has a right from his birth. In any case since the lower appellate Court inadvertently has not adverted to the merit of the application for additional evidence, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is liable to be reversed on this ground alone.