The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly interpreting property rights and previous court decrees to determine an individual's entitlement to a specific share of the property.

ORDER :

Doraiswamy Raju, J.

1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 02.06.1982 in RSA No. 627 of 1992 dismissing the appeal as of no merit, thereby, affirming the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Narnol dated 05.02.1992 in CA No. 58/1991, which, in-turn, has set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge dated 15.02.1991, resulting in the dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the respondent. The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 909 of 1987 for a declaration to the effect that he is the owner of ?th share belonging to Mukha, son of Dilbar, in addition to his own share on the basis of a civil court decree passed in civil suit No. 338 of 1973 decided on 11.09.1974. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on the basis of the judgment dated 11.09.1974 in civil suit No. 338 of 1973. Aggrieved, the respondent pursued the matter on appeal before the District Court and as noticed earlier, the learned Additional District Judge, while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, held the plaintiff/appellant herein was entitled to only 1/12th share. It was also pointed out by the learned First Appeal Judge that the mistake resulting in the erroneous claim was on account of the fallacious understanding about the share of Ram Chander by assuming it to be ?th, as against the real 1/12th. It would be useful to extract para-9 of the judgment of the learned District Judge to make the factual position clear and beyond controversy:-

"9. I have given my due deliberations to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and in my view there is a great force in his submissions. In order to understand relationship between the parties, the following pedigree table is drawn:-

Ram Sukh, Dilbar Manbhar Laxman

Kashi Ram

Ram Teka Birbal Sukha Ghisha

Chander@ Mukha

Nihal Sheo Karn Bhuru Hukama

3. From the jamabandi for the 1995-96 BK (Ex.D4) it is proved that Ram Sukh was owner of 1/12th in the suit land. Admittedly, he left behind three sons Dilbar, Manbar and Laxman and after the death of Ram Sukh each of the sons had got ?th share. It is also not disputed that Dilbar left behind his two sons Ram Chander and Teka @ Mukha, therefore, each of the sons got 1/12th share after the death of Dilbar. The entries in the jamabandi for the year 1971-72 Ex.D8 showing Mukha to be owner of ?th share are obviously incorrect. It has not been shown by any substantive evidence as to how Mukha came to own ?th share in the land. Presumption of truth is attached to the jamabandi but this presumption is rebut table. The pedigree table Ex.D7 is not disputed. To recapitulate Teka @ Mukha got only 1/12th share after the death of Dilbar and, therefore, he could suffer decree only to the extent of ?th share. The fallacy took place at the time of compromise effected on 16.12.1977 and at that time, the parties were under the apprehension that Teka @ Mukha was owner of ?th share which is in conflict with the record, therefore, the record has to be corrected and brought up to-date. The findings of the learned trial court are thus incorrect and are reversed so far as issue No. 1 is concerned. The mutation bearing No. 1130 dated 09.03.1982 has been rightly sanctioned."

4. It is against this judgment the appellant, who went before the High Court also unsuccessfully, is before us. On a careful consideration of the submissions on either side, it inevitably follows that the sons of Ramsukh, by name, Dilbar, Manbar and Laxman, each became entitled to ?th in the share of Ram Sukh, who himself was said to be entitled to half share in the total property. Consequently, the son Dilbar, through whom both the parties herein traced their title, by name Ram Chander and Tekha @ Mukha, would each be entitled to 1/12th and not ?th, as assumed in the prev