- (1.) Heard Sri R.C.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents though the names of Sri V.B. Khare, Sri V.D. Ojha, Sri Yasharth, Sri R.U. Ansari and Sri V.K. Khare have been shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondent. Sri Ansari, one of the several counsels for the respondent has sought adjournment on the ground of illness, which I declined to accept since it is an old matter pertaining to year 1977 and there are several other counsel to represent respondent. I accordingly proceed to hear this appeal ex parte.
(2.) Following four substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court: "(i) Whether the admission made in the agreement dated 19.7.1946 by the Sukhinath (original defendant) was binding on Smt. Ram Rati widow of Sukhinath and admission marked as exhibit -2 not having been explained or rebutted, it was not only binding but conclusive and decisive of the matter? (ii) Whether agreement Ex.-2 proved that the land in question was grave-yard and it was not legally open to Smt. Ram Rati defendant to go against the admission in that document when she claimed right in the land through Sukhinath defendant who executed the agreement? (iii) Whether the land in dispute being Kabristan and so recorded in municipal record, it will remain Kabristan and it being also waqf property, its nature cannot be changed? (iv) Whether the permissive possession of a licencee could turn into adverse possession particularly in view of the proved agreement dt 19.8.1946?"
(3.) The brief facts, which would be helpful to answer the aforesaid questions, as born out from record, are as under:;