Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) CM No. 7077 -C -2014.
(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned, the application is allowed and delay of 30 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. Cm stands disposed of. RSA No. 2978 of 2014 (O&M)
(3.) THE defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed to the effect that Sarupa s/o Lakhi was the owner of the land measuring 14 kanal 8 marlas situated in village Marodhi Jatan, District Rohtak. It is further alleged that Sapura left his home about 20 years ago and has never been heard since then by the persons, who would have heard about him, had he been alive and thus he was presumed to have been dead in the eyes of law. Sarupa had a daughter, namely, Chander, married to Maman Singh of village Budha Khera Lathar Tehsil Julana, District Jind and the plaintiff is the son of Sarupa's daughter Chander, who had already passed away. He further pleaded that Sarupa had gifted his land vide gift deed dated 5.5.1972 to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff approached the revenue authorities to enter the mutation in his favour in respect of the land of Sarupa on the ground that Sarupa has died, in the eyes of law, the revenue authorities did not oblige him and hence he has filed the present suit in which he has also alleged that the defendants are creating unnecessary hurdle by manipulated a false and bogus Will, purported to have been executed by Sarupa, in their favour on 28.7.1969. In reply, defendants No. 1 & 2 filed joint written statement admitting that Sarupa was the owner of the land in dispute and after his death by way of Registered Will dated 28.7.1969 they are in actual cultivating possession. They also denied the theory of gift propounded by the plaintiff alleging it to be a forged document. Defendant No. 7 filed separate written statement alleging that Sarupa had a great affection for Ajit Singh and if Ajit Singh fails to prove his right then he would not be entitled to the property. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and from the pleadings of the parties as many as five issues were framed on 14.5.2005. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and Karan Singh Record Keeper as PW2, besides tendering documents. On the other hand, the defendants examined as many as five witnesses and led documentary evidence as well. However, the trial Court decreed the suit on 10.1.2011 and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants on 14.11.2013.;