Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[25]. The next question that arises for consideration is regarding the paternity of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. It has been submitted 25 of 30 by learned Senior Counsel for the defendants that the documents i.e. discharge slip (Ex.P1), ration card (Ex.P4), birth certificates (Exs.P5 and P6), voter list (Ex.P7), certificate of qualification and mark-sheet (Ex.P9), mark-sheet (Ex.P10), certificate of qualification (Ex.P11), certificate of primary school (Ex.P12) along with labour room register of Maharshi Dayanand Hospital (Exs.P13 and P14) and birth certificate (Ex.P15) are not sufficient to establish paternity of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 as has been held by both the Courts below. He has further submitted that both the Courts below fell in error while giving undue weightage to these documents. These documents have been made at the instance of Charanpreet Kaur @ Priti and it is only on the basis of her statement that the authorities have prepared these documents. In none of the documents, handwriting or signatures of Sushil Kumar appear, nor Sushil Kumar had filled any of the form. [26]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that these documents have been proved on record by the relevant witnesses from the Government offices and a presumption of truth is attached to these documents. She further stated that both the Courts below have rightly given weightage to these documents. [27]. In my considered opinion, these documents specially the birth certificates Exs.P5 and P6 dated 14.01.2005 and 06.10.1998 clearly established the fact that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are sons of Sushil Kumar and were born on 13.07.1994 and 11.07.1997. Further record of the labour room register Ex.P14 corroborates the case of 26 of 30 the plaintiffs, wherein also names of the parents have been stated. It is a settled principle of law that civil cases are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The evidence on record at least prima facie establishes that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are sons of Sushil Kumar. Defendants on the other hand, have not produced any evidence to show that these documents are forged, fabricated or procured documents. Another relevant factor for coming to this conclusion is that, in the present case, the suit was withdrawn vide order dated 09.06.2006 in view of verbal statement made by plaintiff No.1-Charanpreet Kaur @ Priti. Thereafter, an application for restoration/recalling of the said order was filed by her on her behalf as well as on behalf of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. In the said application, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that on account of compromise, the case was withdrawn and it was agreed between the parties that share of deceased Sushil Kumar would be given to the plaintiffs or an equivalent amount of the market value of the property of the share of Sushil Kumar would be given to the plaintiffs. The market value of the property was assessed @ Rs.70,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- by way of draft was given to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, further payments were not made and as such, the application for recalling was filed. The statement of Amita Devi (DW-3) widow of late Naresh Kumar would also prove the factum of payment of Rs.7 lacs in the context of civil suit filed by plaintiff No.1. This is one of the strong circumstances which would negate theory of the defendants that the aforesaid payment was made on the asking 27 of 30 of the plaintiffs being poor persons and at the insistence of the respectables. The context in which the aforesaid payment was made to plaintiff No.1 has not been dispelled by the defendants by any evidence.