OM PRAKASH ALIAS PARKASH & OTHERS Vs. DEVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below, whereby, his suit for damages against the defendants stood decreed. In sequel thereto, the defendants/appellants herein are driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 17.09.1994 at about 6.30 a.m., when plaintiff and his father were standing in the courtyard after doing agricultural work, the defendants came in the courtyard and asked the father of the plaintiff to divide the landed property. The father of the plaintiff told that since crop has been sown now and after harvesting of the crop the land would be divided. Upon this defendants became angry and defendant No.1 assaulted the father of the plaintiff with a Lathi, whereas, defendant No.2 attacked with a spade. The plaintiff also tried to rescue his father as a result of which both plaintiff and his father fell down on the ground. The defendants gave several lathi and spade blows, as a result of which, father of the plaintiff became unconscious on the spot. The wife of the plaintiff was also caught hold by defendant No.3, who did not allow her to save the plaintiff and his father. Lateron, the matter was also reported to the Pradhan by the wife of the plaintiff. Thereafter plaintiff along with his father was taken to CHC, Gagret, who referred them to District Hospital, Una. Lateron, the father of the plaintiff succumbed to the head injury and postmortem was also performed by the doctor wherein the doctor has opined that father of the plaintiff died due to head injury etc.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. It has been averred by the defendants that the plaintiff and his father, namely, Harjal Singh were aggressors and they attacked the defendant and inflicted injuries on defendant No.3. A case was also registered against the plaintiff. The criminal case registered against defendants is false as defendants No.1 and 3 acted in self defence. Defendant No.2 was away from home and has been wrongly impleaded as party. The defendants have denied other averments made in the plaint. It has also been alleged that defendant No.3 was medically examined at PHC, Gagret. It has been admitted that Harjal Singh, father of the plaintiff, died at Una, but defendants were not responsible for the injuries of the plaintiff and Harjal Singh.