- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. This second appeal is by pnly one of the two defendants i. e. defendant No. 2 arising from original suit No. 126 of 1974 between Radhika Devi and others v. Laxmi Shanker Sharma (now dead) and another. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs be declared owner of the property in dispute i. e. house No. B-21/89 Kamachha, Varanasi as mentioned in schedule 'a of the plaint and for recovery of possession of a part thereof with a further relief that the defendants be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from dis possessing the plaintiffs from some portion of the property described in schedule 'b' of the plaint. The suit was decreed by Court of first instance and the said decree has been upheld by the lower appellate Court. Thus the defendant No. 21 appellant has preferred this second appeal.
(2.) THE suit was instituted on 1. 5. 74 on the allegation that the plaintiff No. 1 Radhika Devi is the legally wedded wife of one Ganga Sahu alias Ganga Raman Sharma and the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are her daughter and son respectively. THE said Ganga Raman Sharma had purchased the house in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 26. 4. 66 and, therefore, on his death on 29. 1. 1974 the property devolved upon the plaintiffs as his natural successors. THE defendants have no concern with the said property. THE suit was resisted on the ground that the aforesaid Ganga Sahu alias Ganga Raman Sharma was a "dashnami Sanyasi" and disciple of Swami Yoganand Giri and had adopted the name of Swami Viraktanand Giri. THE property was actually purchased by defendant No. 1 out of his own funds but the deed was not executed in the name of aforesaid Ganga Raman Sharma as "benamidar1 even though he had not contributed anything towards the sale consideration. At the first preliminary hearing of the appeal on 21. 7. 08 the hearing was adjourned for 29. 7. 08, as the parties agreed for final disposal of the appeal at the admission stage itself. However, on hearing the parties, a short point which prima facie appeared to be involved was formulated with regard to the interpretation of the sale deed dated 26. 4. 66 to the effect as to whether by the sale deed in question the property was purchased by late Ganga Raman Sharma in his personal capacity or for the benefit of Akhara/reiigious Sampradaya (hereinafter called as 'religious sect') represented by him. On the next hearing, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respon dents No. 1 to 3. It was taken on record. An amendment application proposing to add some more grounds to the memo of appeal was also filed on behalf of the appellant. Since, the application was of formal nature the parties were permitted to advance arguments on merit assuming the amendment proposed to have been allowed.
(3.) I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. K. Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Sri Singh has very fairly conceded that apart from the above point with regard to consideration of the sale deed dated 26. 4. 1966 all other points which may be said to be arising in this appeal stand concluded by findings of fact and, as such, need not be impressed upon as none of them would be involving any substantial question ef law. The interpretation of the above sale deed, which is a document of title in itself is a substantial question of law and, therefore, the appeal has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid sale deed only. He has given up the issue of the property having been purchased 'benami'in the name of the aforesaid Ganga Raman Sharma.;