- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The contesting respondents namely respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit in O.S. No.575 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court by a Judgment dated 9.03.2005. The appeal filed by them in A.S. No.43 of 2005 was also dismissed by the 1St Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore by a Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2005. and However, the second appeal filed by the contesting respondents (plaintiffs) in S.A No. 1156 of 2006 was allowed by the High Court, after taking into account three additional documents filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is against the reversing Judgment of the High Court that the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit have come up with the above appeal.
(3.) Without much ado, it can be pointed out that the High Court framed the following as the substantial questions of law arising for consideration in terms of Section 100 of the Code: 1. Whether the lower courts are right in dismissing the suit inspite of availability of title deed? 2. Whether the lower courts are right in brushing aside Ex.A5 to A8? 3. Whether the lower courts are not wrong in falling to see the evidentiary value of Exs.A5 to A8? 4. Whether the lower Courts are right in overlooking the admissions made by Dws? We are surprised that the above questions are considered by the High Court as substantial questions of law. It is well settled that every question of law may not be a substantial question of law and every mistake committed by the subordinate courts cannot be elevated to the level of issues of law. ;