JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The second appeal has been filed by defendant No.1. On 24.12.1984, plaintiffs Balihar Singh and Balkar Singh (minor) through his brother Balihar Singh, both sons of Santokh Singh son of Bhagat Singh (defendant No.1) filed a suit seeking a decree for joint possession of the land falling in two villages Ghataron and Hansaron, Tehsil Nawanshahar, District Jalandhar, mentioned in the head note of the plaint, alleging that the parties in the suit are governed by Hindu Law, plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 constitute a Joint Hindu family and are coparceners and the land being ancestral, they have a right in the property by birth. It was further alleged that defendants No.5 and 9 who claimed themselves to be the vendees of the land of Bhagat Singh (defendant No.1) have no right as Bhagat Singh had no legal necessity to alienate the coparcenary property. 2. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, it was, inter alia, alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata as the earlier suit filed by the father of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Court of Sub Judge, Nawanshahar, the suit property is neither Joint Family property nor coparcenary property and is rather self-acquired property by defendant No.1. 3. The plaintiffs filed replication denying the averments in the written statement and re-iterated the stand taken in the plaint. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 8 constituted joint Hindu family? OPP 2. Whether the suit property is joint Hindu family coparcenary property? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata? OPD 5. Whether the pedigree table propounded in para No.1 of the plaint is incorrect? OPD 6. Relief. 5. Plaintiff-Balihar Singh appeared as PW1, whereas defendant – Bhagat Singh appeared as DW1. Besides that, documentary evidence was led by the parties. 6. OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata? OPD 5. Whether the pedigree table propounded in para No.1 of the plaint is incorrect? OPD 6. Relief. 5. Plaintiff-Balihar Singh appeared as PW1, whereas defendant – Bhagat Singh appeared as DW1. Besides that, documentary evidence was led by the parties. 6. Vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1988, the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nawanshahar held that the land of village Ghataron is not proved to be ancestral, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to assail the alienation made by Bhagat Singh – defendant No.1 in respect thereto, whereas land of village Hansaron is proved to be ancestral and being a coparcenary property, it was held that the alienation was not valid. 7. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in respect of the land of village Ghataron, whereas defendant No.1 filed the cross-objections against the finding of the learned trial Court holding the land of village Hansaron to be ancestral and granting the decree of joint possession with regard thereto. 8. The learned First Appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 5.4.1990, disposed of the appeal filed by the plaintiffs as well as cross-objections filed by defendant No.1 in which it was held that so far as finding of the learned trial Court in respect of land of village Ghataron is concerned, that cannot be questioned as the land is found to be nonancestral, but land of village Hansaron was found to be ancestral on the basis of excerpt, Exhibit P-13, and it was also held that Exhibits D-1 and D-2 i.e. the judgment and decree of the previous suit between Santokh Singh and Bhagat Singh do not operate as res-judicata. Therefore, both the appeal and cross-objections were dismissed. 9. Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellantdefendant No.1 - Bhagat Singh, at the very outset, submitted that two substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal, which are reproduced as under: “1. Whether the suit for joint possession filed by the respondent plaintiff is maintainable during the life-time of the father and grand-father in view of the law laid down in 2004(2) PLR 599? 2. Whether the excerpt Ex-P13 can be read in evidence in the absence of the official, who prepared the said excerpt, as witness?” 10. Whether the suit for joint possession filed by the respondent plaintiff is maintainable during the life-time of the father and grand-father in view of the law laid down in 2004(2) PLR 599? 2. Whether the excerpt Ex-P13 can be read in evidence in the absence of the official, who prepared the said excerpt, as witness?” 10. Opening his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the pedigree-table contained in the plaint, which is re-produced as under: Inder Singh | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Bhagat Singh Gurnam Singh (Defdt.No.1) (defdt.No.2) | ---- -------------------------- | | | Santokh Singh Shangara Singh Avtar Singh | (deft.No.3) (deft.No.5) | | | | Jita | ---------------------------- -------------------------------------- | | | | | Balhar Singh Balkar Singh Paramjit Bahadur Tejpal (plff.No.1) (plff.No.2) Singh Singh Singh (deft.No.6) (deft.No.7) (deft.No.9) 11. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel that when the suit was filed by the plaintiffs, who are grand-sons, against defendant No.1 who is the grand-father, both their father Santokh Singh and grand-father were alive and such a suit for declaration as to joint possession filed by the sons during the life time of their father(coparcener) is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case Raghubir Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and another, 2004(2) P.L.R. 599 and contended that in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment that the suit for joint possession is not maintainable. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to preliminary objection No.1 where it was alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. 13. So far as the second question of law, that has been raised, is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that excerpt, Exhibit P-13, could not have been taken into consideration as the same has not been proved in Court because office Kanungo – Baldev Raj, who has prepared the same, has not been examined as a witness. It has further been argued that the excerpt, Exhibit P-13, has not been proved in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders. 14. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service today as well as on the previous two dates. 15. It has further been argued that the excerpt, Exhibit P-13, has not been proved in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders. 14. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service today as well as on the previous two dates. 15. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Raghubir Singh (supra) in which it has been held that a son is not entitled to ask for partition of coparcenary property, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for joint possession was apparently not maintainable. It was further held that, in fact, the suit for joint possession is a circuitous method for seeking the partition in the life time of the father which is not permissible. Therefore, relying upon the above decision in Raghubir Singh’s case (supra), substantial question No.1 raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is answered in affirmative and it is held that the present suit for declaration and for joint possession filed by the plaintiff in the life time of father and grand-father was not maintainable. 14. In respect of the second substantial question of law, the learned Court below has observed that excerpt, Exhibit P-13, was prepared by office Kanungo - Baldev Raj after recording the statement of the said Kanungo about his having prepared the same correctly, but Kanungo was not produced in the witness box for his cross-examination, therefore, his statement, by itself, in the absence of his examination cannot be accepted as evidence for the purposes of corroboration to the excerpt prepared by him. There is a complete procedure provided under the High Court Rules and Orders in respect of the preparation and production of excerpt in the Court and also the manner in which the same has to be proved. It is provided in Volume I, Chapter 9, Rule 5 (v) and (vi) of the High Court Rules and Orders that unless proved the excerpt of the Special Kanungo is not evidence. The Special Kanungo or Patwari Moharrir must, when he goes to the Court always bring with him the original records from which his excerpt has been compiled, so that he may be available for comparison. The Special Kanungo or Patwari Moharrir must, when he goes to the Court always bring with him the original records from which his excerpt has been compiled, so that he may be available for comparison. He must also be put on oath and be asked to say whether the excerpt is a true copy of the portion of the original records. It is further provided that the Court should, as a rule, compare with the original records some of the entries and initial and date those thus compared. Chapter 9, Rule 5(v) and (vi) is re-produced as under: “(v) Excerpt should be a true copy and should be proved. Court must remember that unless proved the excerpt of the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is not evidence and must not be treated as such. The Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir must, when he goes to Court always bring with him the original records from which his excerpt has been compiled, so that he may be available for comparison. He must always be put on oath, and be asked to say whether the excerpt is a true copy of a portion of the original records. The excerpts must be a correct copy of such portions of the records as are relevant and not merely a summary or paraphrase. (vi) Comparison with original. The Court should, as a rule, compare, with the original records some of the entries in the abstract and initial and date those thus compared.” 17. Beside the above Rule, it has also been held by this Court in the case of Banta Singh and others Vs. Phuman Singh, 1971 PLR 1042 that the revenue expert is not part of the record of rights and does not carry any presumption of correctness. It has to be formerly proved by the examination in the witness box of the person who has prepared it on the basis of the entries in the various settlement and entries in the jama bandis. 18. Since in the present case, Baldev Raj – Kanungo, who is alleged to have prepared the excerpt, Exhibit P-13, has not been examined in the witness box and the excerpt has not been proved in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, referred to above, it cannot be relied upon having not been proved in accordance with law. 18. Since in the present case, Baldev Raj – Kanungo, who is alleged to have prepared the excerpt, Exhibit P-13, has not been examined in the witness box and the excerpt has not been proved in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, referred to above, it cannot be relied upon having not been proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the second substantial question, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is also decided in his favour. Since neither the suit is found to be maintainable as held herein- above and the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ancestral nature of the suit land, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. In view of the findings recorded above, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Courts below so far as the land of village Hansaron is concerned, is set aside with costs. ----------------------