The admissibility of public documents requires corroborative evidence to establish claims of familial relationships; civil suits challenging property mutations remain maintainable under specific provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, vide which the appeal filed by Ses Ram (original plaintiff) was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Manali camp at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that mutation Nos. 900 and 903 of Phati Dunkhrigar attested on 13.06.2003, passed by learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Kullu in favour of the defendant, are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. It was asserted that Rirku, grandfather of the plaintiff, was the owner in possession of the land mentioned in para (1) of the plaint. His sons, Shupu, Birbal @ Popi, Chappu, Fagnu and Jogni, inherited the land in equal shares after his death. Chappu died about 51 years before the institution of the suit, and his estate was inherited by the plaintiff. Shupu gifted his entire property to the plaintiff. Birbal @ Popi died 29 years before the institution of a suit, and his share was inherited by his son and widow. Jogi died issueless about 26 years before the institution of the suit, and his estate was inherited by Shupu and Fagnu. However, his share was mutated in favour of Shupu, Fagnu and Reshmu (defendant) in equal share vide mutation No. 903. Fagnu died issueless, and his estate was mutated in favour of Shupu and Reshmu vide mutation No. 900. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before Collector, Kullu, which was decided in his favour. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was decided in his favour. The plaintiff filed a further appeal before the Financial Commissioner, and this appeal was allowed. Mutations Nos 900 and 903 were ordered to be reviewed. Learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade attested the mutation in favour of the defendant regarding the estate of Jogi and Fagnu. Hence, a civil suit was filed seeking the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, improper valuation, insufficient description of the suit land, plaintiff being estopped from filing the present suit, and the suit being barred by limitation. It was admitted that the suit land was earlier owned by Rirku, the plaintiff’s grandfather; the estate of Rirku was inherited by his sons, and the estate of Birbal @ Popi was inherited by his sons and widow. It was admitted that Jogi was survived by Shupu, Fagnu and Reshmu and mutation No. 903 was attested to this effect. It was also admitted that Fagnu remained unmarried, and his estate was inherited by Shupu and Reshmu. It was asserted that the plaintiff is estopped from denying that Reshmu is the daughter of Rirku because he had not