ROSHAN LAL Vs. CHAMAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1) has laid challenge to the order dated 1st June, 2009 whereby the application filed by him under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for placing on record certified/attested copy of registered sale deed No.1352 dated 16.10.1999 in favour of one Amar Nath son of Gopi Ram in respect of part of khasra No.395/2, has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs i.e. Chaman Lal, Pawan Kumar minor son of Roshan Lal and Smt. Darshana Devi widow of 2 Sh. Roshan Lal filed a suit. In the suit it was claimed that the Plaintiffs jointly hold 1/3rd share in the suit land comprised in khasra No. 395. It was further claimed that the Plaintiff No. 1 had 1/6th share in the property and Plaintiffs No. 2&3 jointly held 1/6th share. The Defendant No. 1 in his written statement claimed that the Plaintiff No. 1 and his deceased brother, also named Roshan Lal, had executed an oral sale on 21.11.1986 and sold their entire share in the suit land for a total consideration of Rs. 75/ - only. However, according to Defendant No. 1, the entire share of the Plaintiffs was only 1/6th and not 1/3rd in the suit land. It was also averred that the Revenue Officer had sanctioned a mutation in favour of Defendant No. 1 in the presence of Plaintiff No. 1 and predecessor in interest of Plaintiffs 2&3 on 17.12.1986.

(3.) BY means of this application the Petitioner wants to place on record the certified/attested copy of registered sale deed No. 1352 dated 16.10.1999 whereby he has allegedly sold part of khasra No. 395 to one Amar Nath son of Gopi Ram. The learned trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that no reference to this sale deed had been made in the written statement and also on the ground that the same was not relevant to dispose of the main case.