Judgment :- Tarbeni Sahai deft, 1 sold 3 bighas 14 biswas of land for Rs. 454 to Hira Lal. Mutation No. 1318 in respect of that sale was sanctioned on 6-12-1936. Tarbeni Sahai then sold 3 bighas, 3 biswas of land for Rs. 200 and mutation No. 2343 in respect of that sale was sanctioned on 5-9-1937.

2. Jagan Nath, son of Tarbeni Sahai instituted the suit of which this appeal has arisen on 7-11-1945, for a declaration that the sales set out in the preceding paragraph were effected without consideration and legal necessity and that the sales will not affect his reversionary rights after the death of Tarbeni Sahai alienor. The contesting defts. resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by time. The trial Ct. granted the pltf. declaration to the effect that the sales in question were without consideration and legal necessity and would not be binding upon his reversionary rights after the death of deft. 1. In the trial Ct., the parties were left to bear their own costs. The contesting defts. then preferred an appeal from the decree passed by the trial Ct. on 21-1-1947. The lower appellate Ct. has allowed the appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs in the appellate proceedings and his dismissed the suit as barred by time.

3. From the decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge on 18-10-1947, Jagan Nath pltf. has come up in further appeal under S. 41, Punjab Courts Act VI [6] of 1918.

4. Mr. D. N. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applt. contends that the finding of the lower appellate Ct. on issue No. 2 is not sustainable. He then contends that the pltf. was entitled to the protection given by S. 11, Indian Soldiers Litigation Act, 1925

5. Now, the finding of the lower appellate Ct. on issue No. 2 proceeds upon the fact that the pltf. has not been able to prove that he was born on 2-1-1925. The sole question involved is one of fact, but Mr. D. N. Aggarwal contends that the finding of fact is vitiated for the reason that the lower appellate Ct. has excluded from consideration the document Ex. P. 13, school leaving certificate of Jagan Nath pltf.. applt. Counsel points out that in the School leaving certificate, Ex. P. 13, the date of birth of Jagan Nath pltf.-applt. is stated to be 2-1-1925. Mr. D. N. Aggarwal then contends that the oral evidence examined at the trial has also not been considered by the lower appellate Ct. in reaching a decision on issue No. 2.

6. With respect to the oral evidence the lower appellate Ct. said:

"The oral evidence adduced by the pltf. resp. in respect of his date of birth is vague and unsatisfactory."

7. Mr. D. N. Aggarwal argues that the discussion of the evidence by the lower appellate Ct. is unsatisfactory and contains an error. Now, I have perused the entire evidence given at the trial. Net "Ram p. W. 1, Sis Ram P. W. 2, Girdhari Lal P. W. 3 Rup Chand P. W. 4. Ram Kishan P. W. 5, Chaman Lal, P. W. 6, Raghbir Singh, P. W. 7 and Tarbeni Sahai P. W. 8, gave evidence at the trial on the point involved in issue No. 2. Net Ram P. W. 1 stated in examination-in-chief that the pltf. was 20 or 21 years old. In cross-examination he stated that he could not give the date of birth of the pltf. and when asked about the date of death of Prakash Wati, mother of the pltf. he stated that she died 26 years or 27 years or 30 years ago. Sis Ram P. W. 2, acted as the Mukhtar of the pltf. in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen and his evidence is open to the same objection. To similar effect is the evidence given at the trial by Girdhari Lal P. W. 3, Rup Chand P. W. 4 and Ram Kishan P. W. 5. Chaman Lal P. W. 6 gave evidence at the trial that Tarbeni Sahai P. W. 8 came to settle in Sonepat 24 years ago and that Jagan Nath pltf. was born to him within a year of his coming to Sonepat. He gave evidence at the trial on 20-11-1945. Now, if the evidence given by Chaman Lal be accepted the suit was clearly barred by time. Raghbir Singh P. W. 8, however, stated that Tarbeni Sahai came to liv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document