KARAN SINGH Vs. MALKIAT DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 09.10.2007, whereby the application filed by the Plaintiffs for appointment of Revenue Expert to prepare the excerpts and report the history of the land as per pedigree table, has been rejected.

(2.) The facts necessary for decision of this petition are that the Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 2 to 4, 8 and 9, as members of a joint Hindu Coparcenary Family, of which Shri Rangil Singh was the Karta. It was alleged that the Will executed by Shri Rangil Singh, dated 9.1.1984, in favour of Defendants No. 1 to 4 qua the suit land is illegal, since Shri Rangil Singh had no right to bequeath the ancestral property in excess of his share. In the plaint itself, a pedigree table was also depicted. Written statement was filed. The correctness of the pedigree table was denied. It was also alleged that the suit property was not ancestral property, but was the self-acquired property of late Shri Rangil Singh. According to the Petitioners-plaintiffs, the land in question was initially owned by one Kapura, who was succeeded by Mahgal Singh. Rangil Singh inherited the land from Mangal Singh and as such the land was ancestral in the hands of Rangil Singh. According to the Petitioners, the present Khasra numbers have changed over period of time due to settlement and consolidation proceedings and, therefore, it is necessary to appoint a Revenue Expert to prepare the excerpt of the suit land, not only showing the Khasra numbers existing prior to and after settlement /consolidation proceedings, but also the persons depicted in the revenue record as owners of the suit land.

(3.) This application has been rejected vide the impugned order only on the ground that the parties have to prove their case by leading their own evidence and cannot seek help of Court in proving their case. This view of the learned trial Court is totally incorrect and against the law laid down by this Court in Shri Gulaba v. Hari Ram,1982 SLC 85.