SURESH KUMAR Vs. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the order dtd. 9/5/2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalore in Civil Misc. Case No.28/2022 (CIS No.31/2022) whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r.w. Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiff has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below has wrongly decided the issue of prima facie case against him ignoring the specific documents placed by him on record whereby Tola Ram had applied for the grant of death certificate of his wife Bhaatki. The said application was even supported by an affidavit of Tola Ram which clearly proved that his wife Bhaatki was the daughter of Hakma Ji. The said documents were the best evidence in possession of the plaintiff which were placed on record by him but have erroneously been ignored by the learned Court below. Learned counsel further submitted that the onus to prove that Bhaatki was married to Tola Ram and was daughter of Hakma Ji had wrongly been concluded to be on the plaintiff and the Court below wrongly held that because the plaintiff did not place on record any document to prove that Bhaatki was the daughter of Hakma Ji, he has not succeeded in proving any prima facie case in his favour.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the documents which the plaintiff is harping upon are of 19/7/2022, that is, the same date on which the alleged sale deed was placed before the registering authority for registration. Meaning thereby, the said documents have been created on the same date only with an intent to some how get the document registered. Counsel further relied upon Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and submitted that even otherwise, by virtue of the said provision, Tola Ram would not be entitled to any right of ownership over the property in question.