Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 273 (PNJ)

Union Of India v. Dasondhan Devi

2006-02-02

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the deficiency in the court fee is also permitted to be made good. The defendant-Union of India, having lost before the first appellate court, has approached this court through the present appeal. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was entitled to freedom fighters pension (I. N. A. Pension), being a member of I. N. A. A prayer for mandatory injunction was also made for directing the respondents to release the I. N. A. Pension with arrears since 1981. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court. The matter was taken up in appeal by him. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the evidence on record duly proved that plaintiff, on joining I. N. A. , led by general Mohan Singh, was imprisoned by the Japanese and finally, he was discharged from service on the ground "discharging surplus army personnel". On the perusal of certificate of service Ex. A-1, it was noticed that the plaintiff had been dismissed from service of the army for the reasons beyond his control on reduction of establishment and in the interest of justice although his character has been assessed as "very Good". 4. Consequently, it was held that since the defendants failed to produce any better documentary evidence to prove that he had not joined I. N. A. and served there, therefore claim filed by the plaintiff stood duly proved. The evidence led by the defendants was not treated as sufficient to dis-prove the aforesaid fact. In these circumstances, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and consequently, his suit was decreed. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.