MOHAN LAL Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the concurrent judgments of the two courts below.

(2.) THE first point argued before me by the learned counsel for the appellants was that as the execution of Ex. 1 has not been proved, the document was inadmissible and that the courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to get decree of the property in question on that basis.

(3.) IN the instant case, the plaintiff-respondent has also produced Radha Kishan, who stated that the property in question had been given by Mst. Sarshabai through Ex. 1 which was duly registered. The original document was admitted by the trial court in accordance with law. It may be mentioned here that when the original had been lost, the hand writing and the signature of the person who had executed the same could not be proved. The law could not or did not insist on the execution of the document to be established.