Regular Second Appeal No. 3371 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3371 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.1.2009 *** Nirmal Singh. .. Appellant VS. Makhan Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay condoned. The instant regular second appeal is being preferred by Nirmal Singh, being the legal representative of plaintiff Udham Singh(since deceased), who has lost concurrently before the two courts below. The plaintiff Udham Singh got instituted a suit seeking declaration that respondent-defendant No.1 Makhan Singh since is not his son and is the son of respondent-defendant No.2 Sardara Singh, therefore, he is not legally entitled to succeed his movable and immovable property and accordingly he be restrained from using his name for all intents and purposes. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 was born on 2.9.1963 while during the period 27.3.1962 to 4.7.1964 he was in jail and thus, defendant No.1 is not his legitimate child, but born from the loins of defendant No.2, the brother of plaintiff. It emerges out from the record that to substantiate his plea and relevant to adjudicate the issue, the plaintiff relied upon entry Ex.P1 in the register of birth and deaths showing defendant No.1 as the son of defendant No.2, but the same was found not genuine being surrounded with suspicious circumstances. Not only this the other circumstances emanating from the record as also the conduct of the plaintiff also reflected that his plea that defendant No.1 is the son of defendant No.2 is not genuine, since as per own showing of plaintiff, the age of defendant No.2 in the year 1963 was 11-12 years. In the considered opinion of this Court, the whole controversy between the parties came to an end while having a bare glance over para Regular Second Appeal No. 3371 of 2008 2 Nos.20 and 21 of the appellate Court judgment, which read thus:- “20. The plaintiff in this case has sought declaration to the effect that the defendant No.1 is not legitimate son of the plaintiff and he is not legally entitled to succeed his moveable and immovable property and he has further sought injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from declaring himself as such and from using his name in the revenue record etc. However, merely on the oral evidence of Udham Singh (PW3) this declaration cannot be issued. The plaintiff in his cross- examination has categorically admitted the fact that Will dated 11.12.1992 (Ex.D1) had been executed by him in favour of Makhan Singh. It has also been admitted by him that Makhan Singh was married to one Satbir Kaur and the said marriage was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Balachaur, where defendant No.1 has been shown to be his son. The certified copy of this marriage certificate (Ex.D2) has not been denied by him. It has also been admitted that a sale deed dated 9.1.1987 (Ex.D10) was executed by him in favour of Makhan Singh showing Makhan Singh as his son. Apart from that, he admitted that Makhan Singh has given a power of attorney dated 11.12.1992 to him which clearly shows Makhan Singh to be his son and it would be pertinent to mention here that he further admitted the fact that his statement was also recorded in the court of SDM-cum- AC Ist Grarde, Balachaur in mutation No.3215, the certified copy of which is Ex.D12 again shows Makhan Singh to be his son. Similarly, in another sale-deed, the certified copy of which is Ex.D13, Makhan Singh is shown to be son of Udham Singh. 21. The admissions made by the plaintiff in his cross-examination clearly show that since long Makhan Singh is being treated and accepted by the plaintiff as his son and in different documents as mentioned above, their Regular Second Appeal No. 3371 of 2008 3 relationship is being reflected as father and son and therefore, now certainly by way of this suit, the plaintiff is not entitled to such a declaration to the effect that the defendant No.1 is not his legitimate son. On the other hand, the evidence of Sukhbir singh (DW1) and the documents brought on record by the defendant such as copy of jamabandi for the year 1990-91 (Ex.D18), copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-21(Ex.D19), copy of Shijra Nasab (Ex.D20), certified copy of order dated 4.10.2004 of SDM Balachaur (Ex.D21) and certified copy of judgment dated 22.5.2006 (Ex.D22) clearly rebuts the plea of the plaintiff because from all these documents, it is manifest that Makhan Singh has been shown to be son of Udham Singh from time to time and as such, the plea of the plaintiff that Makhan Singh is not his legitimate son, cannot be believed at all. Above all, the pedigree table (Ex.D20) shows defendant No.1 to be the legitimate son of the plaintiff.” The above concurrent observations of the two courts below leave no manner of doubt that on the basis of over-whelming evidence led by defendant No.1 to show that he is the legitimate child of plaintiff, both the Courts below have rightly refused to grant the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit. Nothing has been shown by learned counsel for the appellant to take a contrary view. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 14,2009 Jiten