to show that late Jagat Ram Chopra held title to the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share. Likewise, for the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the only legal heirs of late Jagat Ram Chopra, they ought to have led appropriate evidence to establish their relationship. But they failed to produce any evidence in this regard. Although, before the first appellate Court, it was sought to be urged that the plaintiffs had produced a copy of the sale deed (Ex.P1), and death certificates of their mother and father, as also the Aadhaar Card, but concededly those documents were never tendered in evidence, and, were merely placed on record as Annexures P-1 to P-5. Thus, could never be read into being inadmissible in evidence. Significantly, no application was moved either to produce any such documents even by way of additional evidence either before the appellate Court or this Court. Further, pursuant to the notice issued to the defendants, Shri Anand Kumar, Kanungo, had appeared on 28.05.2014, on behalf of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and made a statement that as per record/register of the Government of India, the suit property has since been auctioned by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, on 11.06.1960, for Rs.950/-, in favour of one Satnam Singh. Even a sale certificate had since been issued in the name of the auction purchaser, as back as on 14.08.1961. Accordingly, the appellate Court observed that even in the grounds of appeal, preferred against the decree rendered by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs did not controvert the statement made by the Kanungo or set up a plea that the said statement was incorrect or false. Thus, the plaintiffs, rather, were guilty of concealing true and material facts. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove the ownership/title of late Jagat Ram Chopra, qua the suit property, as also that they were his heirs, the only and the inevitable
