BALBIR SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Hukama was the owner of the land in dispute. Tara Singh, defendant No. 1, is his son. Lachhman Singh another son of Hukama had died earlier. Balbir Singh, plaintiff-appellant, had brought a suit for possession that he, as the son of Lachhman Singh son of Hukama, alone was entitled to the land left by Hukama deceased because Tara Singh, defendant-respondent was not the son of Hukama. Tara Singh in his written statement, of course, asserted that he was the lawful heir of Hukama as a son. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :-

(2.) The learned trial Court held that the appellant failed to prove that he was the son of Lachhman Singh and decided issue No. 1 against him. Issue No. 2 was also decided against him. Issue No. 3 was decided against Tara Singh, defendant-respondent. On these findings, the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appeal filed by him also met the same fate. He has come up in second appeal before me.

(3.) It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Courts below should not have disregarded the statement made by Chanan Kaur (PW-5) and the appellant himself for holding that the appellant had not been proved to be the son of Lachhman Singh son of Hukama. Now, admittedly son was born to Lachhman Singh on March 3, 1947, because this fact is evidenced by Exhibit P.A., copy of the birth certificate. Smt. Chanan Kaur had made a statement that she was married to Lachhman Singh who was employed in the Orphan House at Sangrur, and from his loins, she gave birth to four daughters and one son. The only thing to be seen was whether the son to which she made a reference had died or grown up as Balbir Singh appellant. On this point, the learned Court below have accepted the statements of Shri Mahan Singh, who appeared as DW-4 and stated that the son of Lachhman Singh died while he was serving at the Oprhange. The respondent has also produced copy of the entry from the death register marked as Exhibit D.A., which shows that on April 14, 1948, son of Lachhman Jhiwar passed away. This entry was made at village Sohian which is at a distance of two miles from Sangrur. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that if the son of Lachhman Singh had died at the Orphanage at Sangrur, the entry about his death should have been made in the death register maintained at Sangrur. It is not disputed that Hukama and his son Lachhman Singh used to reside at village Sohian and in that event the entry about the death of Lachhman Singh's son might have been made in the register relating to village Sohian. In any event whether the appellant is proved to be the son of Lachhman Singh, or not is a pure finding of fact. Sitting in second appeal, it is not open to me to reverse a concurrent finding of fact, especially when there is some evidence in support of such a finding.