Recitals in documents regarding boundaries executed by third parties in favour of the plaintiffs are not admissible in evidence if the executant is not dead and does not come to corroborate them.

1. This regular Second Appeal is directed against the decree dated the 21st of October, 1963, of Shri Om Parkash Sharma, Additional District Judge, Rohtak, accepting the defendants appeal challenging the decree of the trial Court by virtue of which the plaintiffs claim for possession, by partition, of half share of a house situated within the municipal limits of Ferozepore Jhirka, was accepted.

2. The following pedigree table is of assistance in appreciating the facts leading to this Regular Second Appeal : KURE | Goddar | -------------------| | Bhondu Mal Jawahar Lal | | Hari Parshad = Ram Kali (Defendant) Bhuria Mal (Plaintiff )

3. The suit of the plaintiff, which was instituted on the 28th of August, 1961, was based on the allegations that the house in dispute originally belonged to his grand-father, Goddar, from whom it had descended to the parties who owned it in equal shares. The correctness of these allegations was denied by the defendant who asserted that she was the sole owner of the house as a result of the gift from her father-in-law who had built a potion thereof in 1931. The parties went to trial on the following issues :-

(1) Is the property in dispute joint of the parties If so, in what shares (2) Relief.

4 The finding of the learned trial Judge on issue No.1 went in favour of the plaintiff and was based mainly on the reason given hereunder : (a) Bhondu Mal and Jawahar Lal were brothers and it is very natural to infer that the house came from their father Goddar. (b) Khasra Paimaish (Exhibit Plaintiff-2) and Shajra Paimaish (Exhibit Plaintiff-3) pertaining to the abadi of Ferozepore Jhirka were documents about 60 years old and indicated that at the time of their preparation. Kure, grant-father of the plaintiff, lived in the house, which then belonged to Bhikari son of Gokal. Kure subsequently became owner of the house by lapse of time and by acquiescence on the part of the said Bhikar whose collateral Ganeshi (P. W.3) stated in the witness box that the house in dispute was once onwed by Kure and that he had been Goddar living therein. (c) Sukhdev, son of Paiman, the owner of a house adjoining the house in dispute on the east, made an application. (Exhibit PX) to the Ferozepore Jhirka Municipal Committee on the 24th of June, 1930, requesting for permission to build his house. In plan Exhibit PY he mentioned that the western boundary of his house was the wall of the residential house belonging to Mukandi son of Daula, and Jawahar and Bhondu, sons of Goddar. This means that Jawahar and Bhondu were having a joint house. Sukhdev being dead, the document is admissible in evidence o the authority of Ghulam Mohammad V/s. Kalim Ullah, AIR 1928 Lah 428. (d) In the registered gift-feed (Exhibit D-3) executed on the 3rd of September, 1934, by the father-in-law of the defendant in her husbands favour, the gifted property is described as a kothir, a sahpa and half portion of a dalan and a staircase. This would not have been the description of the property if the gift had been of the whole house. It was in these premises that the learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit. His finding on issue No.1, however, was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge chiefly for the reason that according to Khasra Exhibit Plaintiff-2 and Shajra Exhibit Plaintiff-3, it was not Kure who was in occupation of the house in dispute, when those documents were prepared but one Kote, that the plaintiff was admittedly in exclusive possession of the house since before the institution of the suit which indicated that the title thereto lay in her, and there was no other satisfactory evidence in proof of the assertion of the plaintiff that the house was the joint property of the parties. The appeal filed by the defendant, therefore, was accepted and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the learned Additional District Judge seriously erred in ignoring important oral an