IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA Nos.255 of 1998 & 95 of 2000 Date of decision : May 10, 2010 RSA No.255/1998 Matu …Appellant. Versus Charan Singh and another …Respondents. RSA No.95/2000 Abdul Sattar …Appellant. Versus Charan Singh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, in both the appeals. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, in both the appeals. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) These two appeals are directed against two different judgments of the first Appellate Court, i.e. Court of Additional District Judge, whereby decrees of the trial Court, in two separate Civil Suits, decreeing the suits of plaintiffs- respondents, have been upheld and the appeals against the said decrees dismissed. 2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Initially, plaintiffs-respondents Charan Singh and Sheela filed Civil Suit No.39/1 of 1991 against Matu, appellant in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… RSA No.255 of 1998. It was alleged that one Kamla was a sister of plaintiffs-respondents, who died sometime in the year 1967 or 1968 and that on her death, her share in the suit property was inherited by the plaintiffs, as she died issueless. It was stated that appellant Matu, in connivance with Revenue officials, had got the estate of said Kamla mutated in his favour, by misrepresenting that he was her son. 3. Appellant Matu contested the suit. He claimed that he was son of Kamla and that mutation, in respect of her estate, had rightly been attested in his favour. 4. During the pendency of the suit, giving rise to RSA No.255 of 1998, another suit was filed by the plaintiff- respondent Charan Singh against Abdul Sattar, appellant in RSA No.95 of 2000, seeking to restrain him from interfering with the share of Kamla in the same property, which was the subject matter of the earlier suit. It was stated that appellant Abdul Sattar, without any right, title or interest in the suit property, had been trying to dispossess the plaintiff. Abdul Sattar pleaded that he had been appointed as attorney by Matu, appellant in the other appeal, for the purpose of managing his mother’s share in the suit property. 5. Trial Court concluded that appellant Matu was not the son of Kamla and as such he did not inherit her share in the suit property. Consequently, both the suits …3… were decreed. Appeals were field in the Court of District Judge against both the judgments and decrees of the trial Court. Those appeals were dismissed. 6. Appeal filed by Matu, i.e. RSA No.255 of 1998, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court has misconstrued, misinterpreted, mis- applied the oral and documentary evidence on record or otherwise did not consider such material in returning the finding that appellant is not the son of late Smt. Kamla. 2. Whether learned Addl. Distt. Judge has erred in relying Ext.PW-1/E Voters list and Ext.PW-1/F residence certificate for basing the finding that the appellant is the son of Tehnu.” 7. Second appeal, i.e. RSA No.95 of 2000, filed by Abdul Sattar, was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether learned District Judge has erred in relying Ext.P1 and Ex.P2, judgment, decree dated 27.10.94 passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, when the said judgment and decree are under challenge in RSA 255 of 98, which is pending in this Hon’ble Court and the judgment, decree dated 27.10.94 have not attained finality?” 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. Plaintiff-respondent Charan Singh and his sister Sheela led oral as well as documentary evidence to show that appellant Matu was not the son of Kamla, who was married to Chaman Singh, but son of one Tehnu. They …4… tendered in evidence a certificate issued from the Office of District Magistrate Ex. PW-1/F, as also copy of Voters List Ex. PW-1/E. As per certificate Ex. PW-1/F, Matu is son of Tehnu, resident of Dhalani, District Dehradun. In Voters list Ex. PW-1/E, one Mahatama is recorded as son of Tehnu. Case of the plaintiffs was that Matu was also known as Mahatama. 10. Plaintiff-respondent Charan Singh himself appeared as PW-1 and stated that Kamla was his real sister and they had common parents. He stated that Kamla was married to Chaman Singh in the area of Dehradun District and that she died within eight months of the marriage, without delivering any child. He examined two other witnesses, namely PW-2 Sher Singh and PW-3 Chuhar Singh, both of whom testified the same fact. 11. Defendant-appellant Matu appeared as DW-1 and claimed that he was the son of Kamla and was born during subsistence of her marriage with Chaman Singh, his father, who had not been heard of for the last 17-18 years. He examined Raju, a brother of Kamla, who stated that defendant Matu was the son of Kamla and the latter died about one year after her marriage with Chaman Singh. One Sharifu from the village of Chaman Singh was also examined, who also stated that Matu was the son of Chaman Singh and that after the death of his mother he had been brought up by Tehnu, husband of his father’s …5… sister. One of the sons of Tehnu, namely Baru Ram, was also examined as DW-4, who stated that he had only one brother, named Radhey Shyam, and that defendant Matu was not his brother and that he was the son of Chaman Singh, his mother’s brother. 12. Defendant, however, did not prove any document, in support of his claim that he was son of Chaman Singh. He submitted two documents, Mark ‘B’ and Mark ‘C’. Mark ‘B’ is written in hand, on a piece of lined paper, which appears to have been taken from a note-book. It purports to have been issued by Block Development Office, Vikasnagar. Nobody has proved it. As per this certificate, Tehnu has two sons, namely Radhey and Baru. Mark ‘C’ is a certificate purporting to have been issued by a Farmers Co-operative Society, per which appellant Matu has paid the entire debt of his father. These certificates do not prove that appellant Matu is the son of Kamla nor can they be looked as pieces of evidence, because of their having not been proved in accordance with law. 13. In the light of the above discussed evidence, it cannot be said that the two Courts below have not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence correctly. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law formulated in RSA No.255 of 1998 are decided against the appellant. …6… 14. As regards the second appeal, i.e. RSA No.95 of 2000, appellant Abdul Sattar is only an attorney of Matu and, therefore, the judgment delivered in the other RSA No.255 of 1998 operates as res judicata against him. Hence, no fault can be found with the findings of the two Courts below, based on the judgments delivered by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court in the other case. Hence, substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is answered against the appellant. 15. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion and answers to the substantial questions of law, both the appeals are dismissed. Both the appeals stand disposed of. May 10, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J