High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Naro Devi @ Kalawati v. Taro Devi & Ors - RSA-997-2004  RD-P&H 1303 (1 March 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.997 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of Decision : March 02, 2006.
Naro Devi @ Kalawati .... Appellant
Taro Devi and others .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Sandeep Ghangas, Advocate
for respondent no. 1 and 4.
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
Mr.Satish Saini, Advocate
for respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT (Oral) :
The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below.
She has filed the present Regular Second Appeal.
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was claimed by her that she is daughter of Ghassi Ram. According to the plaintiff, Ghassi Ram had two wives namely Parmeshwari Devi and Sona Devi. Parmeshwari Devi was arrayed as defendant no.1. Parmeshwari Devi had a daughter namely Taro Devi from Ghassi Ram. Taro Devi was arrayed as defendant no.2. Plaintiff claimed that she is the daughter of Sona Devi, who has since died, who was the second wife of Ghassi Ram. Accordingly, she claimed that she was entitled R.S.A.No.997 of 2004 (O&M) : 2 :
to succeed to her share in the property, left behind by Ghassi Ram. Plaintiff, accordingly, challenged the compromise deed dated April 10, 1989 and also the order dated April 10, 1989, passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, in favour of defendants no.3 and 4.
Defendants contested the suit and claimed that plaintiff was not the daughter of Ghassi Ram. They also claimed that Sona Devi was not the second wife of Ghassi Ram, as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants specifically pleaded that plaintiff had no concern with Ghassi Ram but was, in fact, the daughter of Daulat Ram, cousin brother of Ghassi Ram.
The parties led their evidence before the trial court. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial court held that plaintiff was not proved to be the daughter of Ghassi Ram, nor her mother Sona Devi was proved to be the second wife of Ghassi Ram. It was also held that in fact, plaintiff was shown to be daughter of Daulat Ram, cousin brother of Ghassi Ram. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court.
Plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate court re-examined the evidence and came to similar conclusions, as had been arrived at by the learned trial court. Appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed.
I have heard Shri Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, Shri Sumeet Goel, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Shri Sandeep Ghangas, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 4 and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case.
Shri Ashish Aggarwal has vehemently argued that the birth certificate Ex.P-2 had been produced by the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff was recorded as daughter of Ghassi Ram, having been born to Smt.Sona Devi. On the strength of the aforesaid document, the learned counsel R.S.A.No.997 of 2004 (O&M) : 3 :
argues that the relationship of plaintiff with Ghassi Ram was clearly proved.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel, I find that the same does not deserve to be accepted.
In the birth certificate Ex.P-2, it is recorded that a daughter was born to Ghassi Ram and Sona Devi and the name of the aforesaid child is recorded as `Chander Kala'. Shri Aggarwal, however, claims that the plaintiff Naro Devi was earlier known as Chander Kala and later on, her name was changed.
I am afraid the aforesaid contention can not be accepted for the reason that no such plea was raised by the plaintiff in the plaint. Merely because of the fact that by appearing as her own witness, the plaintiff had stated that she was also known as Chander Kala and her name was later on changed by Ghassi Ram, the said fact can not be taken to be established. It is merely a self serving statement, by the plaintiff in her own favour. No such evidence, as required under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, has been led by the plaintiff to prove her relationship with Ghassi Ram.
In this view of the matter, the findings of facts, recorded by both the courts below, can not be held to be erroneous in any manner or contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
March 02, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.