R.S.A. No. 3847 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3847 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.8.2008 Smt. Sona and others .. Appellants v. Lachhman Dutt alias Lachhman Dev .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The defendants are in appeal against the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction with possession was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the parties to the dispute were claiming ownership with regard to the property left by one Shanti widow of Sukh Lal, who died issueless on 21.11.1999. The respondent-plaintiff claimed himself to be the alone nearest heir in the agnate/collateral of late husband of Shanti. The suit came to be filed to challenge mutation Nos. 1319 and 1320 wrongly recorded regarding inheritance of the property of Shanti on 31.8.2000 in favour of the appellants-defendants. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the shares of the parties were not correctly recorded in the mutations. Only the plaintiff appeared as a witness. No documentary evidence as such was led to prove the relationship of either of the parties with deceased-Shanti or her husband. It was only after the statement of the respondent-plaintiff had been recorded that copies of the mutations accompanied by a pedigree chart were tendered in evidence by the counsel. As to how and in what manner the pedigree chart was prepared and who was instrumental in the preparation thereof had not come on record in the statements of either of the parties. The person who had prepared the R.S.A. No. 3847 of 2007 [2] pedigree chart of the mutations was never summoned. Learned courts below relied upon the pedigree chart and decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, he had to plead and prove his case to the hilt to enable the Court to pass a decree in his favour. He submitted that the pedigree chart has not been proved in accordance with law. Mere tendering of document by the counsel while closing the evidence, when the contents thereof had not been proved as such, cannot be relied upon to decree the suit. He further submitted that even in his own statement, the respondent- plaintiff did not talk about the pedigree chart or in what manner he is related to the deceased, who died issueless. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that mutations had been entered into at the behest of the defendants-appellants and they should not be permitted to dispute the same. The pedigree chart was also furnished by them before the revenue authorities. The respondent- plaintiff is only disputing the shares as divided by the revenue authorities as per the pedigree chart prepared. However, he could not dispute the fact that no material had come on record as to who had presented the pedigree chart and in what manner the same was prepared. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the real dispute between the parties regarding inheritance of the property of Shanti has not been properly addressed to by the courts below. The relationship of both the parties with the deceased is the main issue which was required to be determined, for which the evidence was required to be led. Mere tendering of document containing certain facts regarding relationship etc. without proving the contents thereof or putting that document to the respondent-plaintiff in the cross-examination may not be sufficient to decree the suit. It is not disputed that the document came on record after the statement of the respondent-plaintiff had already been recorded and as such, he could not even be cross-examined on that document. No reason is forthcoming as to why the document was not produced by the respondent-plaintiff in his examination-in-chief. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, it would be appropriate if the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set R.S.A. No. 3847 of 2007 [3] aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the same afresh in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. The parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the trial court on 27.9.2008 for further proceedings. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.8.2008 mk