Regular second appeal by a plaintiff seeking to establish ownership and relationship to a deceased mother. The High Court dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to adduce evidence required under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove paternity, despite oral testimony.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.1285 of 1997(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1285 of 1997(O&M) Date of Order: 18.03.2019
Gurpreet Singh
..Appellant
Versus
Jeet Singh and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate and Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate, fof respondents no.3 to 6.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for LRs of Jeet Singh, respondent no.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
Plaintiff-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below.
Plaintiff claiming to be son of late Smt. Gurpal Kaur @ Chhoti filed this suit claiming ownership. Defendants disputed the fact that the plaintiff was having any connection with late Smt. Gurpal Kaur.
Plaintiff failed to produce certificate of birth, voter card, ration card, matriculation certificate to establish that he was son of late Smt. Gurpal Kaur. Even the entry in the register of the Chowkidar of the village was not produced. Thus, the courts below dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that
NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.28 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
RSA No.1285 of 1997(O&M)
there was a trial on account of murder of late Smt. Gurpal Kaur in which her brother Dalip Singh had made a statement that a son was born to late Smt. Gurpal Kaur, Ex.P8. Hence, he submitted that Dalip Singh, the brother of late Smt. Gurpal Kaur proves that plaintiff is her son.
Both the courts have examined this aspect and found that the statement of Dalip Singh has not been proved on the file. Still further, to prove relationship evidence has to be led in accordance with Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case, plaintiff has miserable failed to lead evidence.
Since on appreciation of evidence, both the courts have recorded a finding which is neither shown to be perverse nor suffering from any error. In view thereof, this court does not find any good ground to interfere.
The regular second appeal is dismissed.
March 18, 2019 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.28 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff successfully established sonship to the deceased mother without documentary evidence of birth or voter card.
Whether the statement of the deceased's brother regarding the existence of a son constitutes sufficient proof of relationship.
Whether the concurrent finding of the courts below dismissing the suit due to lack of evidence was perverse.
Gurpreet Singh
Jeet Singh
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
