RSA No.1353 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1353 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: October 30 , 2009 Paramjit Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Kuldip Kaur and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for possession of the property in dispute on the basis of title. The plea of the appellant that she had become the owner of the property by way of will dated 1.5.77 was found not to be proved on facts while it was found that the respondent was the purchaser of the property. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was liable to be dismissed since neither Kuldip Kaur nor her alleged attorney Sukhjit Singh appeared in the witness box? ii)Whether as per alleged position of law, Kuldip Kaur was required to appear in the Court personally and depose in support o the averments made in the plaint? iii)Whether the ratification deed produced on record as Ex.PX was admissible in evidence since no one had proved the same on oath? iv)Whether deed of ratification is not per se admissible since RSA No.1353 of 2008(O&M) 2 neither Kuldip Kaur not Sukhjit Singh appeared in the witness box regarding execution of attorney by Kuldip Kaur in favour of Sukhjit Singh? v) Whether the learned courts below erred in law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent without even properly appreciating the said legal objections raised by the appellants? It would be seen that the four questions proposed relate to the authority of Gurbax Kaur to appear as a witness on behalf of the respondent as attorney. Learned counsel has argued that since the respondent did not appear to personally ratify the ratification deed, the evidence of Gurbax Kaur could not have been taken into consideration. In my opinion it cannot be said that the case of the respondent was deemed to be proved only by the testimony of Gurbax Kaur. Her title was proved by the sale deed Ex.P2 which was proved by the son of one of the attesting witnesses. In the circumstances the technicalistic plea that the ratification deed had to be personally ratified would not hold much water in law. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 30, 2009 sunita