- (1.) Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate, for the appellants and Kunwar R.C. Singh, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3.
(2.) The substantial questions of law, which has arisen in this case, are: (1) Whether the statement of Smt. Kailashi, defendant-respondent no. 4 (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) could be treated as her admission under Section 18 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872") so as to qualify for an admission which needs no further proof under Section 58 of Act, 1872? (2) Whether statement of Smt. Kailashi, defendant-respondent no. 4, after execution of sale-deed dated 8.10.1965, ought to have been considered in accordance with the principle as applicable to Pardanashin lady, considering the fact that she was an old lady of 65 years, widow and rustic village women? (3) Whether the judgment of Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") has complied with the directions issued by this Court by considering and deciding the issues whereupon this Court has remanded the matter vide judgment dated 5.12.2007 passed in Second Appeal No. 1818 of 1977?
(3.) Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for appellants, stated that statement of Smt. Kailashi, defendant-respondent no. 4 did not qualify to be an admission under Section 18 of Act, 1872 and placed reliance on this Court's decision in Smt. Phekni Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and others, 2011 114 RevDec 658. He further contended that there were several contradictions in the statement of defendant-respondent no. 4 which have been ignored by Courts below. He lastly contended that this Court required LAC to consider two questions but those have not been addressed by LAC and, therefore, the impugned judgment of LAC is vitiated and in the teeth of the directions issued by this Court.;