RSA No. 2989 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2989 of 2003 Date of Decision: October 21, 2009 Ram Singh ...... Appellant Versus Piara Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging three sale deeds made by him. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case,the appellant having led affirmative evidence showing his date of birth as 15.12.1962, the approach of the learned 1st Appellate Court in accepting the appeal and dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, can be sustained in law? RSA No. 2989 of 2003 2 b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in view of the fact established on record that the mother of the appellant had eloped with some stranger on 1.10.1978,when he was of tender age, the haste in which the alleged sale deeds were executed to divest the appellant of his ownership shows that the transactions in question were not binding on the appellant besides fraudulent? c) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the approach of the learned 1st Appellate Court in reversing the well-considered and well-reasoned judgment and decree of the trial court on conjectures and surmises is not vitiated? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. The core question is question No. (a). Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that three separate entries in the school in the year 1969, 1971 and 1972- i.e. much before the litigation had started - clearly evidenced that the appellant was born on 15.12.1962. It is further argued that the sole reason for disbelieving this date of birth was a birth certificate placed on the record which was, however, never proved in accordance with law. I, however, find that it is not only on the basis of this birth certificate that the learned lower Appellate Court had held that the appellant has not been able to prove that his date of birth was 15.12.1962 and not 1958. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court in this regard. On a perusal of the findings it cannot be said that they are based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to render them liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. Once question No.(a) is held against the appellant, the peripheral question No.(b) and the general question No. ( c ) would also RSA No. 2989 of 2003 3 have to be answered against him. Consequently his appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 21, 2009 sunita