Ramdia through Lrs. Vs Hukam Chand and Ors.

Defendant No.1 is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit for declaraon relang to the property in dispute, filed by the sole plainff Hukam Singh (respondent No.1 herein), was decreed by the learned Addional Senior SubJudge, Jind, vide judgment & decree dated 27.08.1993. The appeal preferred by defendant No.1 Ramdia (appellant herein) was dismissed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge (II), Jind, vide judgment dated 15.09.1995.

¶16

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the par*es shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The trial Court record, as available on the DMS, has been perused.

¶17

Admi�ed Facts : The pares are closely related, and their inter se relaonship is not in dispute. One Chaju had three sons, namely Ramdia, Dariya,

¶18

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶20

and Ujala. Dariya died long back, and his estate devolved upon his widow Smt. Manbhari. Dariya and Manbhari had no issue, and Smt. Manbhari ulmately died issueless. Ujala, the third son of Chaju, had admi:edly expired prior to the death of Smt. Manbhari. Defendant No.2 Smt. Mundri is the widow of Ujala, while the sole plainff Hukam Singh & defendant Nos.3 to 9 are the legal heirs of deceased Ujala. Defendant No.1 Ramdia, the appellant herein, is the remaining son of Chaju and is the real paternal uncle of the plain*ff.

¶21

Subject ma�er of dispute : The dispute pertains to the estate of deceased Smt. Manbhari, who owned property situated in two villages, namely Majra Pegan and Pegan, which she had inherited a>er the death of her husband Dariya.

¶22

5.1 Plain�ff’s Case : The case set up by the plainff was that Smt. Mundri (defendant No.2), the widow of Ujala, and Smt. Manbhari were real sisters. A>er the death of her husband Dariya, Smt. Manbhari allegedly resided with the plainff, who looked a>er and maintained her. Out of love and affec*on, and pursuant to a family se:lement, Smt. Manbhari suffered a decree dated 05.01.1988 in Civil Suit No.4 of 1988 *tled “Hukam Singh vs. Manbhari”, passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jind. Smt. Manbhari therea>er died intestate on 10.01.1988.

¶23

5.2 It was further pleaded that defendant No.1, who was only distantly related to Smt. Manbhari, in collusion with the Patwari and the Numberdar of the village, got a false report entered in the Roznamcha, showing the date of death of Smt. Manbhari as 21.12.1987. On the basis of the said manipulated entry, two mutaons, namely mutaon No.786 (Ex.P9) and mutaon No.2026 (Ex.P10), relang to the properes of Smt. Manbhari situated in the two villages, were sanconed. The plain*ff contended that the entry regarding the date of death, purportedly based on the statement of Ramphal son of Ramdia, was fraudulent and manipulated, as Smt. Manbhari had in fact expired on 10.01.1988.

¶24

Page 2 of 11

¶25

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶27

5.3 On these asserons, the plainff sought a decree of declaraon to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the suit land described in the headnote of the plaint, on the basis of the decree dated 05.01.1988 suffered by Smt. Manbhari in his favour. A further declaraon was sought that mutaon Nos.786 and 2026 were illegal, void ab inio, and not binding upon his rights. Consequenal relief of permanent injuncon was also claimed to restrain the defendant N: 1 from forcibly dispossessing him, interfering in his peaceful possession, or aliena*ng the suit land.

¶28

Defendants’ Stand : Defendant Nos.2 to 9, being the mother, siblings, and children of siblings of the plainff, filed a wri:en statement admiEng the claim of the plainff in toto.

¶29

Only defendant No.1 Ramdia contested the suit. He pleaded that Smt. Manbhari had, in fact, expired on 21.12.1987 and was wrongly shown to have died on 10.01.1988. According to him, the entry in the Chowkidar’s register showing the date of death as 10.01.1988 was incorrect and had been manipulated by the plainff. It was further pleaded that Dariya had died much earlier, that Smt. Manbhari never resided with the plainff, and that no family se:lement ever took place between them. Defendant No.1 alleged that the plainff had played fraud upon the Court by obtaining the decree dated 05.01.1988 through impersonaon, as Smt. Manbhari was not alive on the date, when the decree was passed. It was further asserted that the impugned mutaons had been entered and sanconed by the revenue authories in a roune course after due verifica*on from the Lambardar regarding the death of Smt. Manbhari. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

¶30

In rejoinder, the plainff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied the allegaons raised by defendant No.1.

¶31

Findings of Courts Below : On the basis of the pleadings, necessary issues were framed. The pares led their respecve evidence. Upon apprecia*on of the evidence on record, the trial Court returned a categorical finding

¶32

Page 3 of 11

¶33

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶35

that Smt. Manbhari had expired on 10.01.1988 and not on 21.12.1987, as alleged by defendant No.1. It was further held that the judgment & decree dated 05.01.1988 had been validly suffered by Smt. Manbhari in favour of the plainff, who consequently became the owner of the suit land. Mutaon Nos.786 and 2026 were declared illegal, void ab inio, and not binding on the rights of the plainff. Defendant No.1 was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plainff over the suit land and from alienang the same.

¶36

The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.08.1993 passed by the trial Court were affirmed by the first Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal filed by defendant No.1, vide judgment dated 15.09.1995.

¶37

11.1 Conten�ons of the Appellant : Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned counsel appearing for the appellant–defendant No.1 has vehemently argued that both the Courts have commi:ed grave illegality by mis-apprecia*ng the evidence on record.

¶38

11.2 The primary contenon raised is with regard to the actual date of death of Smt. Manbhari. It is urged that cogent and convincing oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by the defendant-appellant to establish that Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987, which evidence has been completely ignored by both the Courts below. Learned counsel submits that the Courts have been unduly influenced by the fact that a decree dated 05.01.1988 was allegedly suffered by Manbhari in favour of the plainff, and on that premise alone concluded that she must have been alive on the said date.

¶39

11.3 Assailing this approach, learned counsel points out that Shri J.N. Bhardwaj, Advocate (PW-4), who was examined by the plainff to prove the wri:en statement and the statement purportedly made by Manbhari in Civil Suit No.4 of 1988, candidly admi:ed during cross-examinaon that he did not know Smt. Manbhari personally. It is argued that once the Advocate, who allegedly appeared for Manbhari, did not even know her, the Courts below could not have presumed that the lady, who appeared before the Court and suffered

¶40

Page 4 of 11

¶41

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶43

the decree was in fact Manbhari herself. According to the appellant, the only plausible inference in such circumstances is that some other lady impersonated Manbhari in order to fraudulently obtain the decree dated 05.01.1988.

¶44

11.4 The next limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the plainff, in a calculated manner, got the date of death of Manbhari recorded as 10.01.1988 in the Chowkidar’s register. Upon coming to know of this manipulaon, defendant No.1 lodged a complaint, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted by the competent authories. It is submi:ed that during the enquiry, statements of the Lambardar, Sarpanch, and other respectables of the village were recorded, and the authories concluded that Manbhari had actually expired on 21.12.1987. Consequent thereto, the date of death was corrected in the official record.

¶45

11.5 Learned counsel further submits that the death cerficate (Ex.DW4/A) reflects both dates i.e., 10.01.1988 and 21.12.1987, and, therefore, the said document could not have been brushed aside by the Courts below. It is contended that once the official record itself reflected correcon of the date of death a>er due enquiry, the Courts were duty-bound to give due weight to the same.

¶46

11.6 Another significant argument raised by learned counsel pertains to the report of the handwring and document expert. It is submi:ed that the expert report categorically established that the thumb impressions appearing on the wri:en statement, vakalatnama, and statement purported to be of Manbhari in the earlier liga*on did not tally with her genuine thumb impressions. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below erred in discarding the expert report merely on the ground that the standard thumb impressions of Manbhari were not proved.

¶47

11.7 In this regard, a:enon is drawn to the tesmony of the official, who produced the pension record of Smt. Manbhari. It is argued that the official brought on record the pension applica*on and related documents bearing

¶48

Page 5 of 11

¶49

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶51

Manbhari’s thumb impressions, which constuted reliable standard specimens. According to learned counsel, the expert compared those standard thumb impressions with the disputed ones appearing in the earlier civil suit, and the mismatch conclusively proved impersonaon. Despite this, the Courts below, by adop*ng a hyper-technical approach, rejected the expert evidence and wrongly upheld the decree dated 05.01.1988.

¶52

11.8 On the cumulave strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is overwhelming oral and documentary evidence to establish that Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987 and, therefore, she could not have suffered the decree dated 05.01.1988. Consequently, the decree relied upon by the plainff is void and unsustainable in law.

¶53

11.9 Sll further, it is argued that upon the death of Manbhari, who had inherited the suit property from her husband Dariya, only defendant No.1 Ramdia, being the surviving brother of Dariya, was entled to inherit the estate in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Alternavely, learned counsel submits that even if the claim of the legal heirs of Ujala is considered, at best the property could devolve half upon defendant No.1 and half upon the legal heirs of Ujala, and in no case, could the plainff claim exclusive ownership.

¶54

11.10 On these premises, prayer is made for seEng aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and for dismissal of the suit of the plain*ff.

¶55

12.1 Conten�ons of Respondent : Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plainff has supported the judgments of the Courts below and contended that the findings returned are concurrent findings of fact, based upon proper appreciaon of evidence, and do not call for any interference in the second appeal.

¶56

Page 6 of 11

¶57

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶59

12.2 It is argued that the death cerficate (Ex.DW4/A) originally recorded the date of death of Manbhari as 10.01.1988, and it was only subsequently, at the instance of defendant No.1 and in collusion with the Patwari and Lambardar, that the said date was manipulated and altered to 21.12.1987. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below rightly disbelieved the alleged correcon made in the official record.

¶60

12.3 With regard to the expert evidence, learned counsel submits that the Courts below were jusfied in rejecng the handwri*ng and fingerprint expert report, as the alleged standard thumb impressions of Manbhari were not proved to be genuine or duly taken in accordance with law. It is argued that in the absence of legally proved standard specimens, the expert opinion was rightly held to be unreliable.

¶61

12.4 Learned counsel further contends that the decree dated 05.01.1988, having a:ained finality, could not be collaterally challenged in the present proceedings. It is submi:ed that Smt. Manbhari, being the absolute owner of the suit property and having no Class-I heir, was fully competent to dispose of her property in any lawful manner, including by suffering a decree in favour of the plainff. The Courts below, therefore, rightly upheld the validity of the decree and declared the impugned mutaons to be illegal.

¶62

12.5 On these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶63

Substan�al ques�on of law : On the basis of the rival submissions, the following substanal quesons of law arise for considera*on:

¶64

Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the date of death of Smt. Manbhari suffer from any perversity due to non-consideraon of material evidence, thereby warranng interference under Sec*on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

¶65

Page 7 of 11

¶66

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶68

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both sides and has carefully appraised the record, within the confines of its jurisdicon under Secon 100 CPC.

¶69

Court Considera�on & Finding : The date of death of Smt. Manbhari constutes the central and determinave issue in the present case. It is manifest that if Smt. Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987, as is pleaded by defendant-appellant, the inevitable consequence would be that the decree dated 05.01.1988 could not have been suffered by her and would necessarily be the result of impersona*on.

¶70

As per the death cerficate Ex.DW4/A (also Ex.DWF/A), issued from the office of the District Registrar (Births and Deaths), the date of death is shown as 10.01.1988. At the same me, by way of correcon, the date 21.12.1987 is also reflected, accompanied by a red-ink note indicang that the entry in the relevant column had been altered.

¶71

The manner in which this change came to be effected becomes evident from the inquiry proceedings forming part of the record. It is true that in the register maintained by the village Chowkidar, the date of death of Smt. Manbhari is shown as 10.01.1988, which entry was a:ributed to Chowkidar Puran. However, contemporaneously, Rapat Roznamcha No.205 was recorded in the Roznamcha Vakaya* of Halka Paigan on 01.01.1988 on the informaon furnished by Ramphal son of Ramdia, stang that his mausi Smt. Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987. This Rapat was recorded by Dayanand, Numberdar of the village.

¶72

Ramphal, therea>er, submi:ed a wri:en complaint (Mark ‘A’) to the SDO (Civil), Jind, poinng out that although Manbhari had died on 21.12.1987, her date of death had been wrongly recorded as 10.01.1988 and sought correcon of the same. The complaint was forwarded for verifica*on, leading to a formal inquiry involving the SHO Rajaund, Tehsildar Jind, Girdawar Halka, Field Kanungo, and the Halka Patwari. Himmat Singh, Patwari of village

¶73

Page 8 of 11

¶74

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶75

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶76

Paigan, a>er verifica*on from village residents, Panchayat members, and other respectables, submi:ed a report confirming that Smt. Manbhari, widow of Dariya, had in fact expired on 21.12.1987. The report bears signatures and thumb impressions of Pyare Lal, Panch, and several other villagers.

¶77

During the inquiry, a statement of Puran Chowkidar was also recorded, wherein he stated that he was illiterate and that Phool Singh, son of Ujala (brother of the plain�ff), had taken his register and himself recorded the date of death as 10.01.1988, despite the death having occurred on 21.12.1987. Statements of other villagers, including Bhim Singh, Member Panchayat, were also recorded (Mark ‘B’), all uniformly supporng the date of death as 21.12.1987. Upon compleon of the inquiry, the SDO (Civil) directed correc*on of the death register, pursuant to which the date of death was corrected to 21.12.1987.

¶78

The inquiry was conducted in the course of official duty by competent authories. In the absence of any evidence suggesng mala fides or procedural irregularity, the presump*on of correctness a:ached to official acts was required to be given due weight. The Courts below, however, rejected the inquiry proceedings without recording any cogent reasons, thereby ignoring material evidence bearing directly on the core issue.

¶79

Further corroboraon is available from Mutaon Nos.786 and 2026 relang to the land of Smt. Manbhari in the two villages. Both mutaons were entered by the Halka Patwari on 02.01.1988, verified by the Kanungo on 05.01.1988, and sanconed on the same date. In the relevant columns, the date of death of Manbhari is recorded as 21.12.1987 on the basis of Rapat No.205 dated 01.01.1988. Entry of inheritance mutaons necessarily pre-supposes the death of the landowner. Such entries on 02.01.1988 could not have been made, if Manbhari had been alive ll 10.01.1988, as claimed by the plainff.

¶80

Another significant piece of evidence is the report of the handwri*ng and fingerprint expert Ex.DW9/A proved by DW9 Yashpal Jain. The ex-

¶81

Page 9 of 11

¶82

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶83

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶84

pert compared the disputed thumb impressions appearing on the wri:en statement, vakalatnama, applicaon for summoning the file, and statement made in Civil Suit No.4 of 1988 with the admi:ed thumb impression of Smt. Manbhari taken from her old age pension applicaon Ex.DW5/B, which was proved by DW5 Ashwini, an official from the Social Welfare Department. Upon examinaon, the expert opined that the disputed thumb impressions were not affixed by the same person, who had affixed the thumb impression on the pension applicaon. The opinion was supported by photographic enlargements. No rebuttal evidence was led by the plain*ff to discredit this report.

¶85

The Courts below discarded the expert opinion on the ground that the plainff had not admi:ed that Manbhari used to draw old age pension. This reasoning does not withstand scruny, as the plainff merely pleaded ignorance and did not deny the pension being withdrawn by Manbhari. Once the pension applicaon bearing Manbhari’s thumb impression was proved from official records, the standard specimen stood duly established.

¶86

As regards the oral evidence, PW1 Hukam Singh claimed that Manbhari was alive ll 10.01.1988 and was under treatment at Jind for about 15–20 days prior to her death. However, no medical evidence whatsoever was produced. No doctor was examined and no prescripon or treatment record was brought on file. Even the Chowkidar register records fever as the cause of death, but no material was produced to substanate treatment during the relevant period. Further, the version that an ailing elderly woman could have travelled to Court on 05.01.1988, engaged a counsel, moved applicaons, and made a statement to suffer a decree, remains unexplained.

¶87

It is also relevant that Phool Singh, who was specifically named during the inquiry as having manipulated the Chowkidar record, did not step into the witness box to deny the allegaon, despite being a party to the suit and supporng the plain*ff’s case.

¶88

Page 10 of 11

¶89

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶90

IOIN-RSA-506-1996 in/and RSA-506-1996 (O&M)

¶91

A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below reveals that no cogent reasons have been recorded for discarding the official inquiry report, the mutaon entries, and the unrebu:ed expert evidence. The inquiry was conducted by competent authories in discharge of official dues, and the record thereof was produced through official witnesses. In the absence of any material suggesng mala fides, such evidence could not have been brushed aside.

¶92

On an overall consideraon of the material on record, the conclusion that Smt. Manbhari had expired on 21.12.1987 emerges clearly. Once that posion is accepted, it necessarily follows that she could not have suffered the decree dated 05.01.1988. The decree, therefore, cannot be sustained and does not confer any valid right upon the plain*ff.

¶93

While this Court remains conscious of the limitaon on interference with concurrent findings of fact, the present case falls within the recognised excepons, as the findings of the Courts below suffer from non-consideraon of material evidence and misappreciaon of the record.

¶94

Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside, and the suit filed by the plainff Hukam Singh is dismissed with costs. In view of the stand taken by the appellant, Mutaon Nos.786 and 2026 are upheld as valid, whereby half share of the estate of Smt. Manbhari shall vest in defendant No.1 Ramdia, and the remaining half shall vest in the legal heirs of Ujala. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed leaving the par*es to bear their own costs.

¶95

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶96

09.02.2026 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶97

Uploaded on.: 09.02.2026

¶98

Page 11 of 11

¶99

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.09 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ramdia through Lrs. v. Hukam Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdia through Lrs. v. Hukam Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Buta Ram Vs Atma Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Ramesh & Ors. Vs Ram Dass

State of Punjab Vs Yoginder Sharma

N.K.Kapoor Vs Hafed Chd. & Ors.

Man Phool and Anr. Vs Gram Panchayat Khaishergarh and Ors.

Ram Parshad and Others Vs Notan Dass