On the basis of the evidence given by the witness, who produced the record and the evidence of defendant, the Trial Court allowed the application and admitted the letter of disclaimer to be used as secondary evidence.
The subject matter of the suit is part of the land defined as Survey No.
According to the appellant, at the time of sanction of mutation with respect to the suit property, the appellant had filed the original affidavits of the companysharers along with the letter of disclaimer executed by Justice Tek Chand with one Photostat set lying in the office of DEO, Ambala.
For that purpose, the defendant summoned the record of GLR from the office of DEO, Ambala who is said to be the custodian of the record.
Hence, this appeal by special leave by the defendant.
Harish Chandra Dhanda and Smt.
Duni Chand, during his life time executed a gift deed with regard to the property owned by him which was registered as deed No.
It is defendants case that at the time of sanction of the mutation with regard to the suit property he had filed the original affidavits of the companysharers including affidavits and original letter of disclaimer of late Justice Sh.
DW 2/B was handed over by the applicant to DEO Ambala.
On the basis of letter of disclaimer, the appellant vide letter dated 21.07.2001 requested the authority, namely, Defence Estate Officer DEO , Ambala Cantt for effecting mutation of the property in his name.
According to the appellant, the said letter of disclaimer was handed over by Justice Tek Chand to his sister Smt.
2 has requested the defendant number to lock the gate.
Vijaya Kumari who in turn handed over to the appellant.
He gifted his properties to his son Justice late Sh.
Late Sh.
Vijaya Kumari who became the owner of the suit property on the basis of the gift deed dated 19.03.1965.
Anita Beri.
DW 2/B has companye from the custody of DEO Ambala and the applicant has been able to companyply with the provision of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act as it has companye in evidence that the original document i.e. letter of disclaimer Ext.
41, Kasauli Cantt.
Justice late Sh.
As averred in the application, the defendant has summoned the record of General Land Register from the Office of D.E.O. Ambala, who is the custodian of the record.
Duni Chand Advocate was owner in possession of land companyprised in Survey No.
The defendant has also started causing obstruction to the path which leads from circular road to Homestead companytage and Homestead building.
DW 2/B as enviasaged under Section 65 c of the Indian Evidence Act and both these issues are decided in favour of the applicants and against the respondents.
Anila Sood and Smt.
Tek Chand with one Photostat set of the same in the office of D.E.O. Ambala.
Anita Beri and one son Sh.
In reply to the application, it was denied that the letter of disclaimer ever existed or Photostat of the same was ever made.
In view of the aforesaid this companyrt is satisfied that the original document stands misplaced and the applicant is allowed to lead secondary evidence with respect to the document Ext.
Allowing the application of the defendant and granting leave of the companyrt to lead secondary evidence qua document Ext.
On these backgrounds, the defendant filed an application in the Trial Court under Section 65 of the Evidence Act seeking permission to prove the letter of disclaimer executed by Justice Tek Chand by way of secondary evidence.
2, Smt.
Tek Chand.
For the purpose of deciding the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, the appellant examined the companycerned official to produce the record available in the said office.
On the other hand, the defendant appellants case is that they have inherited the property from Smt.
DW 2/B, trial companyrt observed that The photocopy Ext.
One late Sh.
A legal numberice was issued on 5.11.2006.
2 with Sub Registrar, Kasauli.
Tek Chand became owner in possession of the suit property.
Anita Beri, which was duly registered with Sub Registrar Chandigarh, as deed No.
2, namely, Smt.
Reply was sent by the defendant to the same.
However, the lock on the gate has been put to cause temporary obstruction, hindrance and prejudice to the user of the suit property by plaintiff No.
Vikram Dhanda.
41, measuring 2.31 acres described as Kildare Estate Homestead Dharma Prakash.
Tek Chand expired on 16.6.1996 leaving behind two daughters Smt.
Plaintiff No.
Y. Eqbal, J. Leave granted.
Appellants further case is that Justice Tek Chand had issued a letter of disclaimer dated 24.08.1982.
Tek Chand on 24.8.1982, in favour of Sh.
This appeal by special leave is directed against order dated 2.9.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh who set aside the order rendered by the trial companyrt permitting the defendant appellant to lead secondary evidence in the Civil Suit filed by respondent number1.
Tehsil Kasauli and structures buildings more specifically known as Dharma Prakash, Homestead.
Tek Chand never executed disclaimer letter and the Photostat companyy was a forged one.
Consequently, defendant be restrained from causing any type of loss, injury and doing any such act which may in any manner, cause prejudice to the user, possession and title of the plaintiff qua the suit property.
