ATTAR SINGH Vs. SARUP SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of nature of the order that is proposed to be made, issuance of notice to the respondents, is dispensed with.

(2.) Heard. Being aggrieved by rejection of his prayer for production of documents, that is, death certificate in respect of the father of the parties and extract of family register under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC'), the petitioner is in revision before this Court under Section 115 CPC.

(3.) In a suit for grant of a declaration to the following effect filed by contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2 are the defendants: "that the plaintiffs are co-sharers/co-owners alongwith defendant No. 01, 03 & 04 in regard to land comprised in khata No. 19, khatauni No. 21, khasra Nos. 42, 43, 87, 88, 89, 90, 293/128, 130, 130/1, 133, 134, 139, 140, 307/232, 312/232, 244, 256, 259, plots -18, land measuring 5-24-42HM, khata No. 18 Min, Khatauni No. 20, khasra No. 123, land measuring 1-90-63 HM alongwith khasra No. 292/128 (292/128, land measuring 0-16-80 HM, vide jamabandi for the yr. 2000-2001, according to share and mutation No. 53 dated 20.08.2005, sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 01, on the basis of impugned gift deed dated 24.03.1994 and by ignoring the order of Ld. Consolidation Officer, Dehra, Distt. Kangra (HP) dated 15.10.1998 in appeal No. 24/98 titled as Dhian Singh V/S Karan Singh etc. remanded by the Additional Director of Consolidation Holding of Himachal Pradesh in appeal/missal No. 234/91 dated 24.10.1997 U/S 54 of the HP Holding (Consolidation) and preventation fragmentation) Act, 1971 filed by the defendant No. 02 against the order of Ld. SO (CH) Hamirpur (HP), dated 25.08.1989 in appeal No. 139/89, furthermore, the said sanctioned mutation No. 53 dated 20.08.2005 aforesaid also eliminating the entitlement of the plaintiffs as to their equal ownership alongwith the defendant no. 01 over the land mentioned in the said mutation on the basis of impugned gift deed as well as impugned mutation No. 53, is illegal, null and void, nonest and nonoperative as a result of misrepresentation and fraud on the part of defendant No. 01 and not binding on the rights of plaintiffs with consequential relief or restraining the defendant from cutting, removing any trees or alienate any part of the suit land in anybody's favour by way of gift, mortgage, lease, sale etc. or in any other manner by defendant till the land is legally partitioned by metes and bounds finally."