- (1.) This second appeal has been filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, Bal Kishan and Parvesh Singh, defendants appellants against Rama Dhin, plaintiff - respondent, Sher Singh and Brij Bhan Singh against the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1998 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad dismissing Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1988 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1987 passed by Civil Judge, Farrukhabad decreeing original suit no. 123 of 1986.
(2.) Initially this appeal was admitted on 19.2.1998 but substantial questions of law were framed on 11.9.2015 in the following manner: "(I) Whether the Judgments of the court below are vitiated by failure to draw any inference for or against the appellant from admitted facts relating to the agreement in dispute which is the basis of suit? (II) Whether the agreement to sell on the face of it is the outcome of conspiracy to commit forgery in which the scribes of the sale deed and of the agreement and the respondent together with marginal witnesses actively participated and forged the same and the interpolation and cuttings therein are brilliant illustrations of the maxim Res-Ipsa-Loquitor? (III) Whether the Courts ought to have framed an issue on the plea in para 16 of the written statements? (IV) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated by failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31? (V) Whether failure to give any finding on the point raised by the counsel for appellant noticed about manner of writing paper no. 8A-1 (Agreement in dispute) and his contention that witnesses Daya Ram and the word 10 were introduced later is against law. (VI) Whether the lower appellate court has erred in holding that the appellant should have summoned the marginal witness since the burden to prove agreement was on plaintiff/respondent?
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent at length and have gone through the written arguments submitted by both the sides.;