RUPINDER SINGH Vs. CHARANBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated 24.9.1997. Plaintiff Charanbir Kaur had filed a suit for joint possession on the averments that she is the daughter of Amarjit Singh and so are defendants No. 2 to 4. He was owner in possession of land measuring 34 kanals and 19 marlas as described in the plaint. Upon his death she claims 1/5th share in the property and it is stated that Joginder Kaur is her step- mother and she has forcibly kept her share of land. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned trial Court after framing issues and granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 22.7.1995 for joint possession of 1/5th share in respect of the suit property. This judgment and decree was unsuccessfully assailed in appeal by the present appellant before the learned Ist Appellate Court which dismissed the appeal, as already noticed, giving rise to this regular second appeal. The basic contention raised in the present appeal is that the respondents herein had miserably failed to prove that she was daughter of late Amarjit Singh and as such the suit ought to have been dismissed. Primarily, it is a finding of fact which has been concurrently arrived at by the learned Courts below upon proper appreciation of evidence. The plaintiff got examined herself, Bachan Singh and Daljit Singh to support her case that she and defendants No. 2 to 4 were daughters of the deceased Amarjit Singh and defendant No. 1 was her step-mother. This statement was further supported by Ex. P-4. The mutation entry dated 25.3.1994 and Ex. P-3 which was the copy of the succession certificate dated 6.5.1994 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Tarn Taran, both these documents seen in the light of other attendant circumstances and ocular evidence produced by the plaintiff, the findings arrived at by the Courts below cannot be said to be erroneous or palpably wrong. No other view can be formed in the cross- examination of these witnesses than the one arrived at by the Courts below. In the suit there was no evidence produced by the defendants on record except their bald statements which have been rightly rejected by the Courts below.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant then half-heatedly argued that the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 22.7.1995 closing the evidence of the defendants under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 is an order which suffers from the error of jurisdiction. This contention is equally mis- conceived. A number of opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead their evidence. They kept on seeking adjournment and on 13.6.1995 only one witness was examined and the case was again adjourned at their request. They failed to produce any evidence on that date and the learned trial Court, therefore, closed the evidence of the defendants. This order of July 22, 1995 was never assailed in a revision before the Court of competent jurisdiction. I do no see any jurisdictional error in the order of the trial Court dated 22.7.1995.