IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 620 of 2000. Date of decision: 13.9.2010. Smt. Karam Kaur and others …Appellants. Versus Sita Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the appellants : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Kuldip Singh , Judge (Oral) This appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 30.8.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 54-NL/13 of 1999 affirming judgment, decree dated 27.10.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh in Civil Suit No. 290/1 of 1995. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Surat Ram predecessor-in- interest of the appellants had filed a suit for declaration that respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit land more specifically described in the plaint with consequential relief of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. Yes 2 permanent prohibitory injunction. In the alternative, Surat Ram was in exclusive possession as co-sharer of the suit land. 3. It has been pleaded in the plaint that Lachhman brother of plaintiff had died at the age of 12 years without marriage. The property devolved on Surat Ram and his brother Punnu. On the death of Punnu, Surat Ram came in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-sharer. Surat Ram had become owner of the suit land by operation of law and he remained in exclusive possession of the suit land during his life time. It has been alleged that on 5.6.1995 Surat Ram took copy of jamabandi and at that time he learnt that Sita Ram had been recorded as owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share. It has been alleged that Sita Ram is not the son of Lachhman. 4. The respondents No.1 & 2 contested the suit by filing written statement. It has been denied that Lachhman died at the age of 12 years. It has been pleaded that Lachhman contracted Karewa marriage with Banti after the death of Kishana his brother and from Banti and Lachhman, Sita Ram was born. After the death of Kishana, Banti and Lachhman lived as husband and wife and gave birth to Sita Ram. The respondents No.1 and 2 denied the case set up by Surat Ram. Respondent No.3 supported the case of Surat Ram. Surat Ram filed replication to the written statement of respondents No.1 and 2 and reiterated his stand. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and the entries in the revenue record recorded in favour of the defendants are wrong, illegal and contrary to factual position on the spot, as alleged? .OPP. 3 2. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by operation of law, as alleged? ..OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present suit ? ..OPD. 5. Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form ? ..OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to claim any right, title or interest in the suit land on account of his acts and conduct ? ..OPD. 7. Whether this suit is barred by limitation ? OPD. 8. Relief. The issues No.1 to 7 were answered in negative and under issue No.8, the suit was dismissed on 27.10.1999. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge on 30.8.2000 has affirmed the judgment, decree dated 27.10.1999 passed by the learned trial Court, hence second appeal by Surat Ram, who died during the pendency of the second appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the Courts below have gravely erred in dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff holding that he has failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the revenue entries and other documentary evidence showing respondent No.1 as son of Lachhman ? 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that two Courts below have erred in returning the finding that Sita Ram was the son of Lachhman. It has been submitted that the material on record has been misconstrued and mis-interpreted by the two Courts below. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment, decree. 4 8. The only question involved in the appeal is whether two Courts below have erred in returning the finding that respondent No.1 is the son of Lachhman. The case of the appellant is that Lachhman was only 12 years when he died. PW-1 Surat Ram has stated in examination in chief that Lachhman was bachelor when he died. However, in cross-examination he has stated that only God knows Sita Ram was born to Lachhman. PW-2 Sohan Lal has stated that he does not know Banti lived with Lachhman as his wife. PW-3 Niku has stated that he does not know after the death of Kishana, Banti married to Lachhman. DW-1 Sita Ram has stated that his mother Banti was earlier married to Kishana and after death of Kishana, she married to Lachhman and he was born there. 9. The appellants have placed on record Ex.P-1 copy of jamabandi for the year 1993-94 in which Sita Ram has been shown son of Lachhman. In Ex.P-2 copy of Khasra Girdwari from Rabi 1995 onwards, Sita Ram has been shown son of Lachhman. The appellant has relied and placed on record pedigree table wherein Sita Ram has been shown son of Lachhman. This document has not been proved but since appellants have relied this document, therefore, it can be used against the appellants as has been held in M/s Rudnap Export-Import vs. Eastern Associates Co. and others AIR 1984 Delhi 20 The documents filed by the appellants have proved that Sita Ram is the son of Lachhman. 10. The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. The appellants have failed to establish mis- construction and mis-interpretation of the evidence by two courts below in returning the finding that Sita Ram is the son of Lachhman. 5 The finding that Sita Ram is the son of Lachhman recorded by the two Courts below is a finding of fact and emerges from the evidence on the record. In second appeal, re-appreciation of the evidence is not possible. There is no merit in the appeal. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. 11. No other point was urged. 12. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. September 13, 2010. (GR)