The judgment establishes the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove paternity and highlights the limitations of the court in re-evaluating evidence under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellants have not been able to prove themselves as the sons of defendant-respondent Mann Singh. It further held that the land in dispute held by defendant-respondent Mann Singh is ancestral and in the absence of proof that the plaintiff-appellants are the sons of defendant-respondent, no permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant-respondent Mann Singh could be issued.

2. The plaintiff-appellant namely Shri Sher Singh along with his brother Bhagwana plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed civil suit No. 184 of 17.6.1977 against the defendant-respondents with a prayer that defendant-respondent Mann Singh be restrained from alienating the ancestral and coparcenary agricultural land. A further prayer was made that the defendant-respondent be restrained from interfering in the use of the suit land by the plaintiff-appellant and plaintiff-respondent No.2 on the ground that it was coparcenary and ancestral property. It was alleged that the defendant-respondent was a drunkard person and was bent upon to alienate the suit land without any legal necessity.

3. In the written statement, the defendant-respondent categorically denied the assertion of the plaintiff-appellant and that they are his sons. It was asserted that Smt. Keshar after the death of her earlier husband Chhaju performed a Karewa marriage with one Phulia resident of village Siha and since then she has been residing with him at Siha as his wife. It is further alleged that the plaintiff-appellants were born out of the wedlock of Shri Keshar and Phulia. The defendant-respondents has claimed that he remained unmarried. He has also claimed that he was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and as such-was entitled to alienate the same in any manner he liked. It was further aleged that the plaintiff-appellant and plaintiff-respondent No.2 did not have any right in the property. Some customs have also been pleaded in support of the afore-mentioned assertion. The plaintiff-appellants also filed a replication.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed;-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are sons of defendants? OPD

2. If issue No. l if proved whether the parties are members of a Joint Hindu Family? OPP

3. Whether the suit property is a coparcenary property of the Joint Hindu Family? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunctions prayed for? OPP

5. Whether the parties are governed by custom in matter of alienation. If so, what custom is? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

7. Whether the defendants are entitled to any compensatory cost under Section 35-A CPC? OPD

8. Relief.

5. Issue No. l is the core issue and the whole controversy in this case revolves around that issue. The trial Court held that the plaintiff-appellants were not the sons of defendant-respondent. The birth certificates Exs.P-4 and P-21 produced by the plaintiff-appellants were discarded on various grounds. The statement Ex.P-5 alleged to have been made by the defendant-respondent in another proceedings was also brushed aside on the ground that it was not accepted by the defendant-respondent while appearing as DW-1, a copy of the application for ration card, showing that the plaintiff-appellants were recorded as the sons of Phulia on the primary ground that the application was verified by the Sarpanch of the Village. Further reliance has been placed on Ex.D-2, Voters list, showing that the plaintiff-appellants were sons of Phulia. The afore-mentioned findings on issue No. l have been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. The views of the learned Additional District Judge in this respect read as under;-

"... I fee! no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove th