(205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIARH FAO No.5146 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.05.2014.
Ram Niwas @ Kehar Singh ……Appellant.
Versus Smt.
Bimla @ Keshar …..Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH Present: Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Rose Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent.
NAVITA SINGH, J.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar, whereby the suit filed by the present appellant for declaration that he is the only legitimate son and heir of Maman son of Neki and that the respondent is not the daughter of Maman, was dismissed.
The suit was brought by the appellant/plaintiff on the averments that there was one Bakhtawar, who had two sons namely Neki @ Sibba and Sahi Ram.
Maman, father of the appellant, was grandson of Sahi Ram and appellant was his only son.
For convenience, the pedigree table incorporated in the plaint is reproduced below:- Bakhtawar _________________|__________________________ | | Neki @ Sibba Sahi Ram | | | ___________________________ | | | | | Hari Kishan Amar Singh Mangat ___________________________________________________ | | | Chandgi Maman Ram Kishan (Tulsa, Shanti and then Sarbati) (Sarbati) _______|___________ | | | | | Om Parkash Ramesh Ram Niwas Ram Parkash Murari Mahabir @ Kehar Singh @ Balla Maya (Plaintiff) Narayani Devi Lachmi Sudesh Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -2- Neki had three sons namely Chandgi, Maman and Ram Kishan.
Chandgi was married to Tulsa and they had one son namely Om Parkash.
Maman was married to Sarbati, who was sister of Tulsa, and out of the said wedlock, the appellant/plaintiff was born on 02.09.1954.
Ram Kishan had two sons namely Ram Parkash and Murari.
After 2-3 months of the birth of the appellant, his father Maman went missing and could not be traced at all.
Tulsa wife of Chandgi died when Om Parkash was very small and as such Chandgi married Shanti, who was the younger sister of Tulsa and Sarbati.
That marriage proved unsuccessful and Shanti left Chandgi and left for good.
No child was born to Shanti and Chandgi and their marriage was dissolved by way of panchayati divorce.
Shanti then married Bhagwana of village Singhran.
When all efforts to trace Maman remained fruitless after waiting for him for quite a long period, Sarbati, mother of the appellant, performed karewa marriage with Chandgi i.e.elder brother of Maman.
Six children were born to Chandgi and Sarbati.
Along with those six children the appellant was also brought up by Chandgi.
Maman was presumed to be dead as per law.
The respondent cleverly took advantage of the situation that Maman was missing and started claiming herself to be his daughter in order to grab his land.
She filed objections to the sanctioning of mutation regarding property of Maman.
Actually, the respondent was not the daughter of Maman and was rather born to Shanti from the loins of Bhagwana or some other person.
Shanti was never married with Maman nor she lived with him at any time.
The respondent had set up a claim that the appellant was not the son of Maman and she being his daughter was the legal heir.
Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -3- The suit was contested on the ground that it was false and vexatious and that the appellant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the same.
On merits, it was pleaded that Maman was not the father of the plaintiff but was rather father of the defendant.
Shanti was married with Maman and when the latter went missing in 1959, the respondent was in the womb of Shanti having been conceived from the loins of Maman.
It was admitted that after the death of his wife Tulsa, Chandgi married Sarbati.
It was pleaded that the appellant is the son of Sarbati and Chandgi.
The pedigree table was otherwise not denied except that the appellant was wrongly shown as son of Maman.
Other allegations of the appellant were denied regarding the respondent being in league with Shanti for greed of property.
She admitted that she had contested the mutation relating to death of Maman and that Maman had not been heard of since the time he went missing.
The respondent denied that after the death of Tulsa, Chandgi married Shanti and that the marriage proved unsuccessful and, thereafter, Shanti left Chandgi.
It was rather, inter alia, pleaded that Shanti was never married to Chandgi and she was married to Maman and out of the said wedlock, the respondent was born.
Marriage of Shanti with Bhagwana was also denied.
It was alleged that the respondent was the daughter and legal heir of Maman.
Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the appellant in which he denied the averments of the respondent and reiterated those made by him in the plaint.
The following issues were settled between the parties by the trial Court:- Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -4- 1.
Whether the plaintiff (now appellant) is entitled to be declared as only legitimate son and legal heir of Maman son of Neki @ Sibba, as claimed for?.
OPP2 Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?.
OPR3 Whether the plaintiff (now appellant) has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present petition?.
OPR4 Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties?.
OPR5 Relief.
It may be mentioned at the outset that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence and rather passed the judgment on a totally misreading of the evidence and overlooking the material brought on record by the appellant to prove his case.
The appellant had sought a direction that he was the legitimate son and heir of Maman and the Court below while declining the relief to him also held that the respondent was the daughter and only legal heir of Maman.
There was, thus, some overstepping of jurisdiction.
So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the best witness Sarbati appeared as PW5 who categorically stated that she was married with Maman and when he went missing and remained untraced, she performed performed karewa marriage with Chandgi, elder brother of Maman.
She stated that the appellant was born to her from the loins of Maman.
The trial Court for the reasons best known to it ignored the evidence of Sarbati, who stated that she is the mother of the appellant and that the latter was born to her out of her marriage with Maman.
It is not understandable as to how the Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish his relationship with Maman, whereas his mother Sarbati was the best witness in that regard who had come in the Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -5- witness box and stated that the appellant was her son from Maman.
Her testimony could not be dislodged in the cross-examination who maintained her stand that she was married to Maman and then performed karewa marriage with Chandgi.
She did not change her stand with regard to the fact that Tulsa was earlier married to Chandgi who had died.
It was suggested to her that Maman was married to Shanti, but the same was denied by her.
She stated that she did not know the defendant.
It is interesting to note that in the cross-examination not even a suggestion was put to Sarbati that respondent Bimla was born to Shanti from the loins of Maman.
It was put to her that Shanti was married to Maman but the witness replied in the negative.
However, it was not put to her that the respondent was the daughter of Maman.
She was asked as to whether the father's name of respondent Bimla was recorded as Maman in her 'Teva' regarding which the witness showed ignorance, but it was not put to her in so many words that the respondent was the daughter of Maman.
Sarbati rather voluntarily said that Maman had only one son namely Ram Niwas i.e.the present appellant.
It was not put in cross-examination to Sarbati regarding the respondent being the daughter of Maman and there was no cross- examination on other material aspects regarding Shanti having left Chandgi.
The account of the witness that the respondent had put up a false claim to be the daughter of Maman to grab his land and all the said relevant facts coming in the examination-in-chief of Sarbati (PW5) stood admitted.
The witness had also categorically stated that the respondent was not the daughter of Maman and she was the daughter of Shanti from the loins of Bhagwana.
There is no whisper in her cross-examination to Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -6- dislodge her testimony that Shanti was married to Bhagwana and that the respondent was not born to Shanti and Bhagwana.
The appellant appeared as PW4 and even in his cross- examination insignificant questions were put to him and stress was not laid on the points on which it should have been.
It was suggested to him that Shanti was married with Maman but this suggestion was denied.
It is also pertinent to mention here that Sarbati had stated that she married Chandgi by way of karewa after five years of the time when Maman went missing.
It has also come in evidence that when Maman went missing, the appellant was only 2-3 months old.
The appellant in his cross-examination also corroborated by stating that he was about five years old when the karewa between Chandgi and Sarbati was performed.
Only suggestions were put to him on different points but those were denied.
Nothing could be shown or put to him regarding proof that Maman was the father of the respondent.
The appellant produced documents Ex.
PW3/B to Ex.
PW3/D showing that he is depicted as son of Maman in the ration card, voteRs.list and his identity card as Member Panchayat.
Om Parkash examined as PW6 is the son of Chandgi.
He is also a very important witness who can be termed to be independent because he had nothing to gain from the estate of Maman and had no reason to lie.
For him it would be the same whether Ram Niwas appellant or Bimla respondent be declared as heir of Maman.
This witness also categorically stated that his father Chandgi was married to Tulsa while Maman was married to Sarbati, sister of Tulsa.
The appellant was born to Sarbati from the loins of Maman.
When Maman went missing and remained untraced, Chandgi performed karewa marriage Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -7- with Sarbati as by that time his fiRs.wife Tulsa had already died long back and his second wife Shanti had left him.
No child was born to Shanti and Chandgi and that Shanti later on married Bhagwana of Singhran.
He maintained his stand in the cross-examination and denied the suggestion that Chandgi was initially married to Sarbati.
Questions were put to him whether any report was made to the police or any news was published regarding Maman having gone missing but interestingly no proper cross- examination was conducted on him to prove that actually Maman was married only to Shanti and that the respondent was daughter of Shanti and Maman.
A passing suggestion was given to him that Bimla respondent was the daughter of Shanti from Maman but it was denied.
Ram Sarup (PW1) appeared in favour of the appellant.
He was the Sarpanch of the village and was 72 years of age at the time of his evidence, meaning thereby he was well aware of the facts of the case.
He stated about the descendants of Bakhtawar and stated about the marriage of Sarbati with Maman and then karewa marriage of Sarbati with Chandgi as Tulsa wife of Chandgi had died by then.
In between Chandgi got married to Shanti but Shanti went away as the marriage was not successful, was also stated by him.
He categorically stated that the appellant was the son of Maman and Sarbati.
He maintained his stand in the cross-examination and as is the case with other witnesses, nothing was put to him which could show that the respondent was the daughter of Maman and Shanti.
Only a suggestion was put which was denied.
His cross-examination also shows that the major account of facts and events given by the witness in the examination-in-chief stood admitted as no cross-examination was conducted on the material aspects.
Similar is the Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -8- situation with the statement of Titu PW2 who was a permanent resident of village Kagsar i.e.the village of Maman and was old enough to be aware of the facts at the relevant time.
He also stated in favour of the appellant regarding the descendants of Bakhtawar and the marriage of Chandgi etc.and marriage of Maman with Sarbati initially, out of which marriage the appellant was born.
His cross-examination could not shake his confidence and nothing favourable for the respondent could be elicited.
Om Parkash son of Pusha Ram, who appeared as PW7, stated that he was working as ‘Bahi Bhat’ and maintaining family records of people belonging to Nai caste and such record is being maintained relating to about 1000 villages falling in the area of districts Hisar, Jind, Rohtak and Kaithal.
He brought the original record of the details of the family of Bakhtawar.
He proved pedigree by stating that Bakhtawar had two sons and one daughter.
One son Sahi Ram had three sons, whereas the other son of Bakhtawar namely Neki Ram had four sons namely Chandgi, Bishna, Maman and Ram Kishan.
Chandgi was married to Tulsa and had one son namely Om Parkash.
Another wife of Chandgi by way of karewa, was Sarbati who was earlier married to Maman.
Two sons and four daughters were born to Sarbati from the loins of Chandgi.
Maman was earlier married to Sarbati and out of the said marriage, the appellant was born.
He stated that the record was maintained by him in regular couRs.and updated from time to time.
The bahi entries were proved by the witness by bringing the original record maintained by him.
The objection raised regarding mode of proof and admissibility was, thus, redundant and the trial Court should have decided it then and there.
Nothing came in the cross-examination of Om Parkash (PW7) which could show that the Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -9- respondent was the daughter of Maman or that the appellant was not the son of Maman.
It has also come in evidence of the appellant that the name of his father as Chandgi was mentioned at a few places because Chandgi had brought him up as his son along with his other six children born to him from Sarbati and many people treated the appellant as son of Chandgi because he was very small when his biological father Maman went missing and his mother Sarbati performed karewa with Chandgi, who then practically became his father.
The respondent, on the other hand, examined Sneh Kumar, Clerk, as RW1 who brought the record from the Election Office, Hisar, to prove documents Ex.
R1 to Ex.
R4 in which the name of father of the appellant is given as Chandgi.
The witness then stated that mistake can be corrected, but he did not know whether any rectification was done later on or not.
It may be pertinent to mention here that the appellant produced ration card, voters’ list and identity card showing that the name of his father was entered as Maman.
In such circumstances, if there was any stray entry in the election record showing the name of his father as Chandgi, it could be a mistake and it also stood explained from the fact that the appellant himself stated that since he was brought up by Chandgi along with other children born to Sarbati from his loins, Chandgi treated the appellant as his son.
Ex.
R1 shows that the name of entire family of Chandgi is mentioned.
His name is given, then name of his wife Sarbati, son Om Parkash, daughter-in-law Kamla and then the name of the appellant and then that of Geeta wife of appellant Ram Niwas.
Also, when people from Election Office go from door to door, it is not necessary for Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -10- providing the names of the family members and parentage that each family member should be physically present.
It is highly probable that whoever gave the details of the family when any such official from the office concerned visited, he or she in routine informed that Ram Niwas was son of Chandgi because they all were living together.
Mukesh Kumar (RW2) proved entry Ex.
R5 from the register in Civil Hospital, Hisar, where birth of a female child on 16.01.1977 was registered and father’s name was given as Ram Niwas son of Chandgi.
Interestingly, name of the mother was not given.
There is nothing to show that any female by the name of Sarbati Devi is the daughter of the appellant.
In the ration card of Ram Niwas, his name is mentioned along with that of his wife Geeta, daughter Neelam and son Anil.
The name of mother of the appellant is Sarbati Devi.
Ashok Kumar (RW3) produced the record of house tax from the village of the appellant and stated that the father’s name of the appellant was entered as Chandgi and then was changed to Maman.
He proved entry Ex.
R6.
However, nothing is gathered from the document that the name was changed to Maman fraudulently.
Even otherwise, the document cannot be relied upon because it is not proved that the record pertains to any house tax in respect of the property of Chandgi or the appellant for that matter.
There is name of another Chandgi in the fiRs.column where he is shown as son of Maman and another person Dariya is shown as son of Maman.
It is not connected that property mentioned against the name of Chandgi is owned by same Chandgi, who was brother of Maman.
Even otherwise, the witness stated in cross-examination that any mistake in the entry is liable to be corrected in due course.
Thus, even Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -11- if the document mentioned the name of the appellant and Chandgi Ram and his other family members and the name of the father of the appellant was corrected as Maman in due course, no fault can be found with the entry.
The next witness of the respondent Krishan Kumar (RW4) brought some record of payment receipt and registeRs.He produced two sheets as Ex.
RW4/B and Ex.
RW4/C which were photocopies of payment register from 01.07.2008 to 10.07.2008 and 11.07.2008 to 20.07.2008.
The name of Ram Niwas was mentioned as son of Chandgi Ram and then corrected to son of Maman Ram.
However, in the fiRs.place these documents are not admissible because only photocopies were brought by the witness.
Without producing the original, no head or tail can be made out from the documents as to what were the registers from which those were taken and what the record actually pertained to.
Mere photocopies could not be taken to be any proof of the entries therein.
Uselessness of the documents is proved by the witness himself when he stated in the cross-examination that he did not compare the photocopies with the original and did not even know whether those were correct or not.
He stated that the entries in the register were not verified.
He then went on to say that name of Chandgi as father of Ram Niwas appellant was entered by him simply because he had seen Chandgi sitting outside the house and he later on came to know that actually the name of father of Ram Niwas was Maman.
This witness of the respondent rather turned the tables and deposed in his cross-examination entirely in favour of the appellant.
The respondent then examined her maternal uncle Gopi as RW5 who stated that Shanti was his real sister who had died and she was Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -12- married to Maman son of Neki.
The respondent was born to Shanti from the loins of Maman.
He stated that Sarbati was married to Chandgi and not to Maman.
However, he produced document Ex.
RW5/B regarding which he stated that he did not know the contents as he was illiterate.
Even otherwise, the said document would be of no help to the respondent as it was rightly objected to on the ground of mode of proof because the original was not produced.
Also the objection was kept open to be decided at the time of arguments, but the trial Court did not bother to decide it.
Learned counsel for the respondent argued that this witness though could not prove Ex.
RW5/B yet no cross-examination having been conducted on him regarding other facts stated by him in his examination- in-chief, his statement to that extent stood admitted and, therefore, the respondent was able to prove her case.
This argument is far fetched because from the statement of this sole witness the case of the respondent cannot be taken to be proved in view of the evidence of the appellant discussed above.
The contents of the examination-in-chief could be taken to have been admitted due to no cross-examination on facts only if the witness was aware as to what he had stated.
This witness categorically stated in the cross-examination that he did not know what was written in his affidavit Ex.
RW5/A which he tendered by way of his examination-in- chief.
Since the witness himself did not know what he had deposed, there was no need for the appellant to have cross-examined him.
The affidavit Ex.
RW5/A is liable to be ignored.
Bimla – respondent appeared as RW6 and stated about the marriage of Shanti with Maman and she having been born out of the said Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -13- wedlock and Chandgi having been married to Sarbati as is the case set up by her.
She stated that in all documents Ram Niwas appellant is being mentioned as son of Chandgi and rightly so because he was not the son of Maman.
It may be of avail to note here that there are some important facts on which the respondent missed out in her examination-in-chief and did not explain about the documents produced by the appellant.
In her statement, she tendered documents Ex.
RW6/B to Ex.
RW6/F and statement of Shanti Devi Ex.
RW6/D (wrongly typed as Ex.
RW5/D in the statement) and Ex.
RW6/I and Ex.
RW6/J.
The document Ex.
RW6/I which is the death certificate of Shanti Devi rather smashes the case of the respondent because it gives the name of deceased as Shanti Devi and name of her husband as Bhagwana Ram and place of death as Singhran.
It is the consistent case of the appellant that Shanti after leaving Chandgi, married Bhagwana Ram of village Singhran.
This is proved from the document produced by the respondent herself.
Ex.
RW6/B cannot be relied upon as it is not proved as per law, which is purportedly an application for preparation of ration card.
Teva Ex.
RW6/C is also of no use as it is not legible and it is beyond any normal person to understand unless some expert is examined.
Mere photocopy even otherwise is not be admissible.
Copy of statement of Shanti Devi produced as Ex.
RW6/D is absolutely illegible and also is not the certified copy but is the photocopy from another copy, which is not admissible.
In any case, nothing can be read from the illegible document as to what Shanti had deposed in the other case and what was that case about.
The photographs having not been proved as per law, which were produced by Bimla (RW6) as photocopies of some photographs, are also totally inadmissible.
The objection taken Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -14- regarding mode of proof on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, upheld.
Respondent Bimla is claiming that her mother Shanti was married to Maman and after her father had gone missing, Shanti had come back to her parental house where she gave birth to the respondent.
Interestingly she (respondent) made efforts to collect evidence from various places and offices for proving the parentage of Ram Niwas appellant, but she did not make any effort to bring her birth certificate on record so as to show that she was daughter of Maman and Shanti.
She also very interestingly denied at one place that Shanti was married with Bhagwana son of Udmi, but she went on to say that her mother had lived with Bhagwana without solemnizing marriage.
Also, four sons and one daughter were born to Shanti from the loins of Bhagwana.
She denied that in the declaration of her mother on 15.04.1964, it was mentioned that Shanti had started living with Bhagwana already.
The respondent could not explain as to how Shanti went to live with Bhagwana one fine morning and produced children who were illegitimate as she was not married to Bhagwana.
It is absolutely unbelievable that some illiterate woman as far as back as more than 50 years would go and live with someone just like that.
There was no concept of live-in relationship at that time.
It appears that the respondent having been caught in her own net by producing Ex.
RW6/I where the name of the husband of Shanti was shown as Bhagwana Ram, she tried to concoct the explanation that Shanti was living with Bhagwana without marriage.
The document must prevail especially when it is produced by the respondent herself and, therefore, it can be construed from the same that Shanti was wife of Bhagwana.
The respondent also stated that four sons and one daughter was born to Shanti from Bhagwana.
Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -15- That daughter must have been the respondent herself, but she intentionally concealed the fact.
She stated that her uncle Ram Kishan had called a meeting for settling the matter between the parties and she was ready to give half share of property of Maman to Ram Niwas appellant.
It is strange that despite stating that her mother never went to the village of Maman once she came back from there and also this witness had never visited the village of Maman, yet she magnanimously agreed to give half share of the property of Maman to Ram Niwas appellant whom she even did not know.
This rather smacks of foul play by the respondent who thought that if she lost in the litigation she would not get anything and if she entered into compromise with the respondent she would at least get half share.
A suggestion was put to the respondent that she had misused one certificate of another Bimla Devi daughter of Maman Ram though that Maman Ram was of Jat caste.
The suggestion was denied by the respondent.
However, she wrote letter Ex.
P11 stating that she had received the transfer certificate of some other Bimla and her own certificate had not been returned by the other Bimla Devi.
The letter was from the school of Singhran, meaning thereby that the respondent was living in that village.
All does not seem well with the documents produced by the respondent and rather it gives rise to a presumption that the inside story is different and all that meets the eye from the point of view of the respondent in as much she led evidence to show that she was daughter of Maman, is not the truth.
Ex.
P8 produced by the appellant is mutation of Udmi son of Panna of village Singhran in which there is pedigree table showing the descendants of Panna who had one son by the name of Udmi and another Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh (205) FAO No.5146 of 2013 -16- by the name of Bhagwana.
Bhagwana had a daughter namely Bimla and mutation regarding death of Udmi was entered in the name of sons of Bhagwana as their uncle Udmi had died issueless.
The document shows Bimla to be the daughter of Bhagwana.
Ex.
P9 and Ex.
P10 show the appellant to be the son of Maman.
In the jamabandi Ex.
P2, name of the appellant Ram Niwas is shown as son of Maman son of Neki.
Presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi.
Similarly, in Ex.
P3 which is another jamabandi where Ram Niwas appellant is shown to be the son of Maman son of Neki.
There is overwhelming evidence on record that Maman was the father of the appellant and the appellant was born to Sarbati and Maman and that Shanti was never married to Maman.
She had rather married Bhagwana son of Panna of Singhran and that the respondent had no relationship with Maman.
The trial Court declared the respondent to be the daughter of Maman which is result of total lack of application of mind.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and decree are reversed.
The suit of the plaintiff/appellant is decreed with costs throughout holding that he is the son and legal heir of Maman and the respondent is not the daughter of Maman.
(S.S.SARON) (NAVITA SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE1405.2014 Ramesh Whether to be referred to reporter: Yes/No Malik Ramesh 2014.05.29 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh