In a second appeal, the High Court has limited jurisdiction and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial error in law or procedure, affirming that registered documents carry a presumption of truth which must be rebutted by cogent evidence.

***

CM-9783-C-2011

Present application under Section 151 CPC has been filed by the applicant/appellant for raising additional ground to the effect that the learned Additional District Judge did not comply with the order of this Court vide which case was remanded.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that in the previous RSA-1390-2006, this Court vide order dated 20.04.2009 had remanded the matter back to the learned District Judge on the ground that application filed by the present applicant/appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC had not been decided by the learned District Judge while passing the judgment dated 09.12.2005, whereby suit of the appellant had been dismissed.

Learned counsel submits that again despite remand of the matter, the said application filed by the applicant/appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC still remained undecided by the District Judge while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2011.

Heard.

There is no merit whatsoever to the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of the applicant. A perusal of the record of the case would show that the application filed by the applicant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 25.01.2011. This aspect of the matter shall be dealt with in greater detail hereinunder.

Thus, there is no merit whatsoever to the submissions of the applicant/appellant. Present application stands dismissed.

CM-7480-C-2011

This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence.

Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that permission may be granted to the applicant/appellant to place on record copy of Mutation dated 31.01.1987; and judgment and decree passed by ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri dated 13.01.2005, which is necessary for the fair decision of the case.

Present application stands allowed.

MAIN CASE

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration that appellant is co-owner and in joint possession of the suit property; and for declaration that Mutation No.5861 sanctioned in favour of the respondent Gajjan Singh, is illegal; and for declaration that the Will dated 25.01.1984 executed by Amar Singh in favour of Gajjan Singh is forged and fabricated; and consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. At the very outset, it may first be pointed out that although present Second Appeal is of the year 2011, however, notice in the main appeal is yet to be issued as the order sheets reveal that the matter has been repeatedly adjourned ad infinitum at request of or due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellant on 06.07.2011, 08.08.2011, 25.08.2011, 14.02.2013, 07.08.2013, 18.02.2014, 22.07.2014, 27.04.2015, 12.10.2015, 29.03.2016, 11.10.2022 and 12.03.2024. Even today, a request for adjournment was made which was declined by this Court, whereupon Pass Over was sought, which was granted. Even in the second-round request for adjournment was made, which was again declined whereupon arguments have been addressed.

3. For proper appreciation of the dispute at hand, the following pedigree table is necessary: -

Bishan Singh
|
| |
Narain Singh Partap Singh
| |
Amar Singh Jangir Singh
| |
| | | |
Sajjan Singh Gajjan Singh Mohinder Kaur Shinder Kaur
(Plff.) (Def.No.1) (Def.No.2) |
Gurtej Singh
(Def.No.3)

4. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that Bishan Singh wa