PARBHU Vs. ANITA BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, (unnumbered), the respondent-plaintiff seeks to place on record Annexures R-1 and R-2, the first being a typed copy of a sale deed dated 12.12.2007, by which it is alleged that the appellants, Parbhu Ram and Raj Kumar (wrongly shown in the memo of parties throughout this lis as Rajinder Kumar as per learned counsel for the appellants), are stated to have sold the suit property to one Smt. Santro Devi.

(2.) As per the judgment of the trial Court, notice having been served upon the appellants herein, they refused to receive the same and not having appeared in Court, despite a munadi having been effected, they were proceeded against ex parte vide an order dated 09.06.2006.

(3.) The plaintiff having examined herself as PW1 and having led documentary evidence in the form of an aks-shijra as P1, a fard jamabandi as Ex.P2, a khasra girdawari as Ex.P4, a mutation as Ex.P5 and report of Local Commissioner as Ex.P6, the learned Civil Judge eventually in her short judgment, there being no pleadings, evidence or arguments on behalf of the defendants, held that the plaintiff had proved her title to the suit property and was therefore entitled to take possession from the defendants.