Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which has arisen from judgment and decree dated 08.07.1978 passed by Sri R.C. Gupta, IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1974 whereby Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as 'LAC) has allowed appeal and reversed judgment and decree dated 27.2.1975 passed by Sri Chhotey Lal, Munsif Hawali, Farrukhabad in Original Suit No. 42 of 1967.
(2.) Appeal was admitted on 18.07.1979 on a single substantial question of law which reads as under:- "i. Whether the lower appellate court is legally justified in reversing findings of Trial Court/Court of First Instance/Munsif regarding title of plaintiff over the house/Baithak obtained by them as zamindars by escheat on death of Dwarika who left with no issue residing in the said house/baithak of Dwarika in village Tyore Khas on the ground that the daughters of deceased Dwarika were alive and residing in another village?" (Emphasis Added)
(3.) During pendency of appeal, Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, counsel for appellants moved an application and proposed addition of five more substantial questions of law. Subsequently, he moved another application no. 110978 of 2014 stating that earlier additional substantial questions of law were not comprehensively framed, hence proposed re-framing of six substantial questions of law, as under:- "A. Whether the lower appellate court can set aside a decree taking a contrary opinion then the court of first instance without meeting the grounds and reasons mentioned by the trial court/court of first instance/munsif ? B. Whether the plaintiff's suit can be dismissed by Lower Appellate Court by misreading the evidence including commissioner's report and the plaint map? C. Whether an agreement dated 17.03.1933 (exhibit - A2) alleged to be executed by the then co-zamindar made sole basis of his claim regarding the disputed land by the defendants can legally be given presumption of section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Lower appellate court by ignoring provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 90 inserted by U.P. Amendment Act No. 24 of 1954 in the said Act? D. Whether the disputed land in use and possession for beneficiary enjoyment of house/Baithak of plaintiff - appellants since before commencement of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 but lying after a narrow lane to the plaintiff's house, cannot legally be a land appurtment to the said house/Baithak of the plaintiff's under section 9 of the said Act? E. Whether Lower appellate court is legally justified in reversing the findings of the trial court/ court of first instance/munsif regarding title of plaintiff over the house/Baithak obtained by them as zamindars by escheat on death of Dwarika who left with no issue residing in the said house/Baithak of Dwarika in village Tyore Khan on the ground that the dauthers of deceased Dwarika were alive and residing in another village? F. Whether lower appellate court can presume defendants title over the disputed land by reversing findings of the trial court by giving presumption to the alleged agreement dated 17/03/1933 which in fact is not on record of the trial court summoned and available with the record of the abovementioned second appeal?" ;