Allowed

Pawan Kumar v. Chander Pal Gill & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2014RSA/552/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal, the High Court set aside lower court decrees dismissing a suit for declaration of parentage. The Court held that birth certificates and school records proved the appellant was the son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi, not the maternal grandfather and grandmother. The suit was decreed, and a mandatory injunction was issued against educational authorities to correct th

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed; the appellant was declared the son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi. Defendants No. 3 and 4 were directed to correct educational records.

Pawan Kumar Vs Chander Pal Gill & Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.552 of 2014 Date of decision: 19.12.2014

Pawan Kumar

... Appellant

Vs.

Sh. Chander Pal Gill and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms. Henna Sabharwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶14

AMIT RAWAL J

¶15

The present regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration to the effect that he is son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi @ Bijender Kaur, resident of village Garhi Sisana, at present resident of House No.1007, Sector 3, Rohtak and not of defendants No.1 and 2 and further relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants No.3 and 4 to make necessary corrections in the educational records of the plaintiff regarding his surname

¶16

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶18

¶19

parentage for showing him as son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi instead of Pawan Kumar Gill son of Sh. Chander Pal Gill and Smt. Murti Devi was dismissed with costs. The appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower Court was also dismissed.

¶20

Succinctly facts enumerated in the plaint are that plaintiff was born on 02.07.1983 in the village Garhi Sisana, District Sonepat and he is son of Sh. Raj Singh son of Sh. Mange and Smt. Bijendri Devi and when he took admission in the school, his name was got entered as Pawan Kumar Gill son of Sh. Chander Pal Gill and Smt. Murti Devi, defendants No.1 and 2, maternal grandfather and grandmother of the plaintiff and it continued in educational records i.e. Middle Examination, Matriculation Examination, Senior Secondary Examination and Certificate of Engineering etc.

¶21

The cause of action to claim the relief of declaration, as per the plaintiff arose when he consulted his birth record in the office of Registrar (Death & Birth) as his actual date of birth was required by the Passport Authorities for going abroad, he came to know about the said mistake and accordingly sought declaration and injunction by filing civil suit ibid.

¶22

Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit by filing joint written statement and admitted the claim of plaintiff. It was averred in the written statement that they never adopted the plaintiff as their son

¶23

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶24

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶25

¶26

nor he is their son. However, the educational authorities contested the suit of the plaintiff primarily on the ground that it is beyond imagination that appellant was not aware about the alleged mistake in the educational record/certificates and had only woken up in the year 2009. In support of his case, plaintiff-appellant brought on record following documents to prove that he is son of Raj Singh and Smt. Smt. Bijendri Devi @ Bijender Kaur:-

¶27

I Ex.P1, Birth certificate -where name of appellant has been shown as Pawan Kumar son of Raj Singh

¶28

Ex.P2 to Ex.P18 Education Records

¶29

Ex.P19 School leaving certificate to show that Pawan Kumar son of Raj Singh, date of birth is 02.12.1983 Ex.PX and Ex.PY Wills of Raj Singh and Bijendri Devi and sought the correction in the documents in respect of Ex.P2 to Ex.P18, where the name has been shown as Pawan Kumar Gill son of Chander Pal Gill and Murti Devi, even the date of birth has been shown as 02.07.1984. In Ex.P1 and Ex.P19 had been proved through the testimony of PW1-Narender Singh, Assistant Accountant, CMO, Office, Sonepat. PW4 Dilbag Singh, JBT Teacher who proved school leaving certificate Ex.P19. Plaintiff also examined PW5 Sh. Kanwar Bhan, Inspector, Food and Supply Department, Rohtak who brought on record the attested copy of Ration Card as Ex.PW-5/B wherein the name of Sh. Raj Singh, Smt. Bijender Kaur has been written along with that of

¶30

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶32

¶33

appellant/plaintiff and his sisters Neelam and Rasna.

¶34

The trial Court rejected the aforementioned documents on the premise that in case date of birth of the plaintiff is considered with the Ex.P1 and educational record coupled with the oral evidence of the parents of the plaintiff it was not sufficient to show that plaintiff is the son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi. The trial Court also nonsuited the plaintiff on the ground that non-joinder of necessary parties as Bijendri Devi had not been made a party to the suit and as per Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1908, the suit was hopelessly time barred. The appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court and upheld the findings of the trial Court by observing that the appeal did not have any merit.

¶35

Sh. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Henna Sabharwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that defendants No.1 and 2 admitted the factum that they never adopted the plaintiff-appellant as their son nor plaintiff-appellant is their son. They got their name entered as being guardians not his parents. He further submitted that his actual father is Raj Singh and mother is Bijendri Devi and even they do not have any objection in making the correction in the educational certificates of the plaintiffappellant regarding his parentage and surname. Therefore, both the Courts below miserably failed to consider the facts much less documents, for, that as per Ex.P1, Ex.P19, Ex.PX and Ex.PY exfacie

¶36

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶37

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶38

¶39

it is established on record that plaintiff is the son of Raj Singh and Bijendri Devi, not of defendants No.1 and 2. Even there was no basis of the incorrect entry in the educational records of the plaintiffappellant wherein he had been shown son of defendants No.1 and 2. Bijendri Devi and Raj Singh were not necessary parties as appellant/plaintiff being a dominus litus had not claimed any relief against Raj Singh and Bijendri Devi. Moreover, Bijendri Devi had appeared in the witness box and narrated true and correct facts by stating that plaintiff is her son and Raj Singh is the father of the plaintiff. He further submitted that suit was instituted from the date of acquisition of the knowledge and therefore, both the Courts below could not have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

¶40

Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate in support of his submissions also drawn attention of this Court that the following substantial questions of law arise, for determination of this Court:-

¶41

“1. Whether the finding of both the lower Courts below perverse and against law in view of the evidence brought on record?

¶42

2. Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are sustainable in the eyes of law when it is duly proved that the plaintiff is son of Raj Singh and Bijendri Devi and not of

¶43

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶44

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶45

¶46

defendants No.1 and 2?

¶47

3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below is sustainable in the eyes of law when it is duly proved that they are against the law and facts available on record?

¶48

4. Whether the findings given by both the Courts below are against the evidence produced by the parties?”

¶49

Defendants No.1 and 2 are none else but maternal grandfather and grandmother of appellant-plaintiff and are represented by Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate, whereas, respondent No.4, M.D.University was represented through Sh. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate.

¶50

Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate in support of his argument, despite opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and also contended that suit exfacie was time barred, therefore, the relief sought belatedly would not be covered under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. He further argued that doctrine of acquiescence would be applicable against the plaintiff.

¶51

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, seen the paper book and appraised the impugned judgments and documentary evidence.

¶52

Ex.P1 is a birth certificate which is duly proved through

¶53

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶54

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶55

¶56

the testimony of PW-1, Narender Singh, Assistant Accountant, CMO, Office, Sonepat, wherein it has been shown that Pawan Kumar is the son of Raj Singh and Bijendri Devi @ Bijender Kaur and his date of birth is 2.7.1983. Ex.P19 is the school leaving certificate which also reflects parentage of Pawan Kumar as son of Raj Singh and Bijendri Devi. Thus, aforesaid documents leave no manner of any doubt in the mind of this Court to agree with the contention of Sh. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate that mistake had occurred by defendants No.1 and 2 as after leaving the school, plaintiff was taken by maternal grandparents i.e. defendants No.1 and 2 and got him admitted in the educational institute but due to inadvertence and ignorance, name of plaintiff was wrongly mentioned Pawan Kumar Gill and parents name as Chander Pal Gill and Smt. Murti Devi instead of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi.

¶57

This fact has not been denied by defendants No.1 and 2 in the written statement. That the said wrong entry regarding the surname and parentage of the plaintiff continued in educational record including his Middle Examination, Matriculation Examination, Senior Secondary Certificate exam conducted by the Board of School Education Haryana i.e. defendant No.3 and in his Certificates of Engineering issued by M.D. University, Rohtak-defendant No.4 in the certificates of all the eight semesters of Bachelor of Engineering and four semester of Master of Engineering and in his degree of Master

¶58

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶59

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶60

¶61

of Engineering issued by M.D.University, Rohtak i.e defendant No.4, whereas as per Ration Card, name of plaintiff's father is written/shown as Raj Singh and mother's as Smt. Bijender Kaur issued at their earlier address House No.366, Ward No.31, Ashok Vihar, Gohana Road, Sonepat and presently issued at H.No.1007, Ward No.29, Sector 3, Rohtak, showing plaintiff to be son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijender Kaur and not of defendants No.1 and 2.

¶62

I am in agreement with the aforesaid submissions as from examination of documentary evidence it is duly proved that plaintiff is the son of Raj Singh and Bijendri Devi and therefore, Ex.P2 to P18 are required to be corrected and amended to have been issued in the name of Pawan Kumar son of Raj Singh and not as Chander Pal Gill and parents name is also required to be shown as Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi instead of Chander Pal Gill and Murti Devi.

¶63

In view of what has been stated above, questions of law are answered in favour of plaintiff-appellant and against defendants No.3 and 4.

¶64

Accordingly, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is decreed and appellant/plaintiff declared to be the son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi resident of village Garhi Sisana presently residing at House No.1007, Sector 3, Rohtak and not of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. Chander Pal Gill and Smt. Murti Devi. Accordingly,

¶65

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶66

RSA No.552 of 2014

¶67

¶68

the mandatory injunction is issued against defendant/respondents No.3 and 4 directing them to make necessary corrections in the educational certificates/records of the plaintiff/appellant regarding his date of birth surname, parentage and he be shown as Pawan Kumar son of Raj Singh and Smt. Bijendri Devi instead of Chander Pal Gill and Murti Devi.

¶69

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

¶70

Decree sheet be prepared.

¶71

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶72

December 19, 2014 savita

¶73

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2014.12.19 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Pawan Kumar v. Chander Pal Gill & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. Chander Pal Gill & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budh Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana &Another

Sucha Singh & Ors. Vs Bohti Devi & Ors.

Balbir and Ors. Vs Jasvinder Singh and Anr.

Hoshiyari Devi & Anr. Vs Satyawan & Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Mukand Lal National College & Anr.