PERBHU Vs. MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1374, 667, 1089 and 1138 of 1978.

(2.) Madan Mohan plaintiff filed the four suits for possession alleging that the land belonging to him was sold by his parental uncle without permission of the Court when he was a minor. Out of the four appeals RSA Nos. 1374 and 1089 of 1978 have been filed on behalf of the vendees as two suits against them were decreed, whereas RSA Nos. 667 and 1138 of 1978 have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff whose suits were dismissed.

(3.) It is no more disputed that the only controversy between the parties is as to the date of birth of the plaintiff in the two suits decreed in favour of plaintiff. He has been found to be born on 27.12.1952, whereas, in the other two suits it has been held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the date of his birth. In RSA No. 1374 of 1978, an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, for allowing additional evidence has been filed. By virtue of that application, the defendant-vendee seeks to produce on record a certified copy of the School Leaving Certificate which shows that the date of birth of plaintiff is 2.4.1952 and not 27.12.1952 as alleged. Since two contradictory findings have been given in these four suits, it is a fit case where this application for additional evidence should be allowed and a report be obtained from the trial Court as to the date of birth of the plaintiff Madan Mohan.