Jaspreet Singh, J. - (1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decree passed by Munsif, Akbarpur, istrict Faizabad in a Regular Suit No. 191 of 1976 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed which was carried forward before the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1979 which was also dismissed by means of judgment and decree dated 16.01.1982 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad.
(2.) Being aggrieved against the aforeasaid judgment and decree, the instant second appeal was preferred which was admited by this Court by means of order dated 26.03.2014 on the following substantial questions of law as which are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: (I) Whether the courts below after recording a finding that Smt. Subra remarried with Jhunnu which finding had also become final as a result of the orders passed under the consolidation operations, the courts below in not considering the fact that no custom having been established or proved by the defendant-respondents to the effect that notwithstanding the marriage the widow will continue rights over the property of her former husband, could hold the sale deed valid ? (II) Whether the courts below in not considering the possessory title of the plaintiff and Dwarika, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-appellants the findings recorded as such stand vitiated ? (III) Whether the plea of adverse possession specifically having been taken a specific issue having been framed to that effect, the courts below in not considering the valuable plea and valuable rights accrued to the plaintiffs on account of adverse possession had any right and in the alternative the findings stand vitiated ? (IV) Whether the specific plea and evidence having been led to the effect that immediately after the death of Nohar, Smt. Subra remarried and migranted to other village and started living with her subsequent husband and also no evidence of possession having been led or established with respect to Smt. Lalli, the Courts below in not accepting the position of the plaintiffs and Dwarika, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, the findings stand vitiated? (V) Whether no issue having been framed to the effect that there was any family custom whereby the remarried widow will continue her rights over the property of her husband and non-framing of issues causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff's case, the findings recorded by the Courts below stand vitiated? (VI) Whether the plaintiffs having been established their possessory title over the property in dispute and at any rate the plaintiffs having matured their rights on the basis of possession. The Courts below in not decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and in not considering their rights on the basis of their posessory title could dismissed plaintiff's suit? (VII) Whether the Courts below in not considering the fact that the house being ancestral and Dwarika father of the appellant no. 1 having been found to be nephew of Nohar at any rate the plaintiffs will not get right over the property in dispute at least to the extent of half share? Factual Matrix:-
(3.) Before adumerating the substantial questions of law, brief facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are being noted first:;