IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.136 of 2010 Date of decision : September 13, 2010 Prem Singh and others …Appellants. Versus Bishan Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellants : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 8. None for respondents No.9 to 11. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, who have lost in both the Courts below, because of rejection of their plea that Tula Ram, father of the respondents, is neither the son of Surtiya nor that of Paras Ram. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel representing the plaintiffs-appellants that finding of the two Courts below that respondent Tula Ram is the son of Surtiya is contrary to Tula Ram’s own admissions, which he made at different times. 3. Relevant facts may be noticed. There used to be a man by the name of Moti Ram. He had three sons, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… named Surtiya, Paras Ram and Tikhu. Surtiya died sometime in the year 1936. On his death, his estate was mutated in the name of his son Tula Ram. Before that Paras Ram died in the year 1927 and his estate was mutated in favour of the plaintiffs and proforma- defendants-respondents. 4. Plaintiffs filed a suit that Tula Ram was neither the son of Surtiya, who died in the year 1936, nor was he son of their father Paras Ram and that the entries in the revenue papers, showing him as joint owner with them, in respect of Surtiya’s share, were wrong and not binding upon them and that on the death of Surtiya, they and proforma-defendants-respondents had inherited his (Surtiya’s) estate. Suit was contested by Tula Ram. He claimed that he was the son of Surtiya and he inherited his estate in the year 1936, when Surtiya died and ever since he was in joint possession of the suit land, being legal heir of Surtiya. 5. Two Courts below returned the finding that Tula Ram is the son of Surtiya and dismissed the suit. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the Electoral Rolls, Tula Ram is being recorded as son of Paras Ram. Similarly, in Muster Roll Ex. PW-7/A, Tula Ram is being shown as son of Paras Ram (plaintiffs’ father). Also, it is stated that in Pariwar …3… Register, copy of entry Ex. PA, Tula Ram is being recorded as son of Paras Ram. He also submits that in an earlier suit, Tula Ram made a statement that he was son of Punni Devi and that Punni, being wife of Paras Ram, presumption is that he is son of Paras Ram. 7. By making the aforesaid submissions, what the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants intends to show is that Tula Ram is not the son of Surtiya but the son of Paras Ram, the father of the plaintiffs and proforma- defendants. This is not the pleaded case of the plaintiffs. They do not admit him to be the son of their father Paras Ram. They have specifically stated that neither he is the son of Paras Ram nor that of Surtiya, their father’s brother, who was joint owner, to the extent of half share. Though, in pedigree table given in para-2 of the plaint, they show Tula Ram as a son of Paras Ram, but in para-4 they state that Tula Ram was born in the year 1929, much after the death of Paras Ram and, therefore, he could not be said to be son of Paras Ram. 8. Entries in Electoral Rolls, Pariwar Register Ex. PA and Muster Roll Ex. PW-7/A are not true, because in all these documents the year of birth of Tula Ram is recorded as 1943, whereas plaintiffs’ own version in Para-4 of the plaint is that he was born in the year 1929. There is a certificate of birth Ex. D-2 issued by the Gram Panchayat, …4… per which a son was begotten by Surtiya in Vikrami Sambat 1985, corresponding to 1928 AD. Surtiya died in Vikrami Sambat 1993, corresponding to the year 1936. On his death, his estate, i.e. his share in the suit land, was mutated in favour of Tula Ram. Mutation order is Ex. PW- 5/C. Ever since, share of Surtiya is being recorded in the ownership and possession of Tula Ram. 9. Paras Ram died in the year 1927 and his estate was mutated in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs and proforma-defendants, i.e. Sant Ram and Chet Ram, the two sons of Paras Ram. On the death of those two sons of Paras Ram, their successors are being recorded as joint owners in possession of Paras Ram’s share, in the revenue record up-to-date. Also, there is copy of Shajra Nasab (pedigree table) maintained by the revenue authorities. The same is Ex. DX/8. As per this Shajra Nasab, Tula Ram is the son of Surtiya. Presumption of truth attaches to Shajra Nasab, it being part of record of rights. No evidence to rebut the presumption has been led. 10. In view of the abovestated position, it cannot be said that a finding, different from that arrived at by the two Courts below, can be recorded, on the basis of entries in Muster Roll, Electoral Rolls, Pariwar Register or the alleged admission by Tula Ram that he is son of Punni Devi. Tula Ram’s admission that he is son of Punni Devi, in no way, …5… proves that he is the son of Paras Ram and not that of Surtiya, especially when the plaintiffs themselves pleaded that Tula Ram was born in the year 1929 and Paras Ram is stated to have died in the year 1927. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It stands disposed of accordingly. September 13, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J