IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 301 of 1998. Judgment reserved on : 22.5.2009 Date of decision : 26.5.2009. Smt. Chailo Devi and others …Appellants. Versus Prem Singh and another ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Appellants : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 30.4.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra in Civil Appeal No.75-D/1997 setting aside the judgment, decree dated 14.5.1997 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (I), Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 302 of 1993 and partly decreeing the suit of respondent No.1 for declaration with joint possession that respondent No.1 Prem Singh is the son of Bishan Dass and is entitled to succeed to the suit land along with Hari Lal and other legal heirs of deceased Bishan Dass, in equal shares. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes. 2 2. The facts have been narrated in detail in the order dated 6.3.2009 and, therefore, I am not again repeating the facts in the judgment. However, it is enough to state that suit was filed by Prem Singh, respondent No.1 for declaration that he is the son of Bishan Dass and is entitled to half share of 25/232 shares of land more specifically detailed in plaint. Hari Lal the predecessor of the appellants was defendant No.1 in the suit and he contested the suit by filing written statement. He took several preliminary objections and on merits, he took the plea that respondent No.1 is not the son of late Bishan Dass father of Hari Lal. He has also pleaded that Bishan Dass had executed a will in his favour and mutation to this effect has already been sanctioned on the basis of registered will. 3. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on 14.5.1997 but in appeal the learned Additional District Judge on 30.4.1998 decreed the suit, as noticed above, therefore, Hari Lal defendant No.1 filed second appeal, who died during the pendency of the second appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned First Appellate Judge was in error in rejecting Ex.D-1 as also the school leaving certificate from consideration in arriving at a conclusion to reverse the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge? 2. Whether the learned First Appellate Judge was right in granting half share in favour of the plaintiff, as it has been done ignoring the other heirs of Bishan Dass? 4. On 6.3.2009 application being CMP No. 486 of 1998 for additional evidence filed by the appellants was allowed but despite 3 opportunities given by this Court, no additional evidence was led by the appellants and their right to lead additional evidence was closed vide order dated 15.5.2009. 5. Heard and perused the record. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in decreeing the suit of respondent No.1, who has miserably failed to prove that he is the son of late Bishan Dass. He has also submitted that Bishan Dass had executed a will in favour of Hari Lal. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned judgment, decree. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that as per voter list Ex.D-1 Prem Singh is the son of Roshan Lal and not of Bishan Dass, but Ex.D-1 was tendered by the counsel. There is nothing on record to show at whose instance entry was made in voter list Ex.D-1 showing Prem Singh son of Roshan Lal. Ex.D-1 at the most establishes that some Prem Singh is a voter. Therefore, parentage of Prem Singh shown in voter list Ex.D-1 has not been proved. The person who prepared the electoral roll Ex.D-1 has not been examined and, therefore, Ex.D-1 cannot be relied in order to establish that Prem Singh is the son of Roshan Lal. 7. In so far school leaving certificates Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B are concerned, the learned Additional District Judge has considered Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B. The appellants cannot take any benefit from Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B. In Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B Prem Singh has been shown son of Bishan Dass. Hence, the substantial questions of law No.1 is decided against the appellants. 4 8. The learned Additional District Judge has not declared that only Prem Singh, respondent No.1 is entitled to succeed half share of Bishan Dass. In fact, the learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit of respondent No.1 to the effect that respondent No.1/plaintiff is the son of Bishan Dass and is entitled to succeed to the suit land along with Hira Lal and other legal heirs of deceased Bishan Dass in equal shares as per Hindu Succession Act. In these circumstances, substantial questions of law No.2 does not arise and is accordingly disposed of. 9. No other point was urged. 10. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ), May 26, 2009, Judge. (GR)