Gurdial Singh and Others vs Ganga Devi and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 7-S/13 of 1997 whereby he upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1996 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Nalagarh, District Solan in Civil Suit No. 222/1 of 1990 decreeing the suit of Puran Chand.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Puran Chand had earlier filed a Civil Suit No. 198/1 of 1981 and Sant Ram, Ram Singh, Ram Saran and Hari Chand who are either the present Appellants or the predecessor-in-interest of the Appellant. They were the main contesting Defendants. It is not disputed that both sides are related to each other and are collaterals. One of the issues in the said suit was with regard to the inheritance of the property of Smt. Sanehru, widow of Jeewanu. In the said suit, the learned Counsel for the aforesaid four Defendants made a statement that the Defendants No. 1 to 4 have nothing to do nor claimed any right, title or interest in the land of Smt. Sanehru, widow of Jeewanu, s/o Gidu of village Kunjahal, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh and the suit qua the estate of Smt. Sanehru may be decreed.

This statement is Ext.D/2 in the present proceedings. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application that the description of Jeewanu, husband of Sanehru was not proper and it was claimed that Jeewanu, husband of Sanehru was in fact, the son of Udhmu. This application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide Ext.D/8 and there after, a Revision Petition was filed. This Court in Civil Revision No. 70 of 1990, vide Ext.D/9, permitted Puran Chand to file a suit for rectification of the mistake.

This suit has been decreed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. The mistake was ordered to be corrected and in the judgment, it was directed that Senahru be described as Sanehru, widow of Jeewanu, s/o Udhmu. Most importantly, in this suit, a pedigree table was filed, giving in detail the relationship of various persons, in which Jeewanu was shown as son of Udhmu. This pedigree table was admitted to be corrected by the learned Counsel for the present Appellants and, therefore, they cannot resile from the said admission. Furthermore, I find that there is no material on record whatsoever to show that there is any other Sanehru, w/o Jeewanu in the village, in question. If there was only one Sanehru, w/o Jeewanu then both the parties knew the identity of Sanehru regarding whose property they were making the statement.

Therefore, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The finding of the learned Courts below is a pure finding of fact. It is true that the questions of law were framed at the time of the admission of the appeal but I find that none of these questions of law arise out of the proceedings. Therefore, the appeal is rejected. No order as to costs.