C.R. No. 1029 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1029 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 22, 2011 Sanjay …..Petitioner Vs. Smt.Shanti and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated January 6, 2011, an application filed by the petitioner for production of birth certificate of Parmeshwari and Chanderpati has been dismissed by the trial Court. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the contents of the plaint. Chanderpati, Mayapati and Ompati, claiming themselves to be daughters of Bansi have filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 3/4th C.R. No. 1029 of 2011 [2] share in the property left by Bansi. It is claimed in the plaint that Bansi had another daughter, Parmeshwari and son Ram Kumar. Successors-in-interest of Parmeshwari and Ram Kumar have been impleaded as defendants in the suit. The petitioner before this Court is heir of Parmeshwari and is eager to produce on record a birth certificate to establish that Parmeshwari was also daughter of Bansi entitled to share in his property. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that in the memo of parties in the suit, Parmeshwari has been described as daughter of Bansi, meaning thereby, that the factum of Parmeshwari being daughter of Bansi stands admitted by the plaintiffs. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that his right in the property is being denied by co-defendants i.e. heirs of Ram Kumar. The said ground is not sufficient enough to allow the application for additional evidence to establish a fact which stands already admitted by the contesting plaintiff- respondents. No ground is made out for interference in the order. Dismissed. February 22, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE