Pahu Mal vs Chhaju Ram and others

S.S. Dewan, J.—The defendant, who lost in both the lower Courts, is the appellant in this regular second appeal. The plaintiffs case was that the plot, as detailed in the caption of the plaint was reserved for common purposes of the proprietory body of village Isapur and the same was being used for social gatherings. The defendant had tried to raise construction over the same with a view to converting it to his exclusive use and had started digging foundations and thus depriving the plaintiffs and their co-owners the right to use the plot in dispute for common purposes. The defendant contested the suit by pleading that the suit was not competent without the permission of the Advocate General u/s 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He denied that the plot in dispute formed part of the abadi deh of the village and claimed its ownership. It is significant to note that the defendant claimed to have purchased this plot from the Rehabilitation Department but he failed to produce any document showing his ownership although he asserted that he got a Sanad with regard to this plot. So the only question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the plot was being used for common purposes by the village proprietory body. The oral as well as the documentry evidence adduced by the plaintiffs show that the plot in dispute was being used by the residents of the village for common gatherings and that evidence could not be shattered by the defendant. The witnesss examined by the defendant hailed from a different village and, therefore, their evidence was rightly discarded by the Courts below. The site plan, Exhibit P-1, brought on the record by the plaintiffs shows that the plot in dispute formed part of Khasra No. 18 and the defendant never raised any objection when the site plan was led into evidence. In P.C. Purushothama Reddiar Vs. S. Perumal, , it was held that once a document is exhibited without any objection, it is not open to the party to object to its admissibility and even the contents of that document get admitted into evidence. Even otherwise the defendant has no where specifically denied in his written statement that the disputed plot did not form part of Khasra No. 18 The Courts below had relied upon the evidence of the plaintiffs and found that the plot in dispute was being used for common purposes of the village proprietory body and formed part of abadi deh and in that view of the matter, the provisions of S. 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, were not attracted. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence. It is one of fact. There is no warrant for interference with the findings in second appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.