PANKAJ MITHAL,J. - (1.) THE plaintiff Jamuna Das instituted original suit no. 709/1968 against the defendants Dani Ram and others for declaration that he is entitle for 1/8th share in the two anna charhawa/bhent (offerings) received at the Giriraj Ji Maharaj Mukharbindu situate in village Jatipura, district Mathura and for recovery of Rs. 112.50 paise from defendant no. 1 as his share in the offerings till 30.11.1968. The suit was mainly contested by the defendant no.1 Dani Ram. The other defendants contended that they have already paid the share of the plaintiff to the defendant no.1 and as such no relief is liable to be granted against them.
(2.) THE court of first instance framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is cosharer in bhent Chadhava? If so, his share? 2.Whether the plaintiff is daughter's son's son of Girdhar? If so, is the plaintiff cosharer either by succession or by sale-deed? 3.Whether the plaintiff is prohibited by custom from receiving Bhent-Chadhava? 4.Relief? The suit was dismissed holding that plaintiff is not the son's son of the daughter of Girdhar and that he is not a co-sharer either by succession or by sale though there is no custom excluding the daughter or daughter's son from receiving offerings. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the judgment, order and decree of the court below has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. The plaintiff has been held to be co-sharer to the extent of 1/8th share in 1/64th part of the offerings and entitle to Rs.112.50 paise from defendant no.1 as the amount of his share due till 30.11.1968.
(3.) IT is against the judgment, order and decree dated 30.9.1978 passed by the lower appellate court that the defendant no.1 Dani Ram has preferred this Second appeal. The appeal was admitted and the following substantial questions of law were formulated for adjudication: 1) Whether the certified copy of the sale deed could be read in evidence even though it was admitted to the plaintiff that the original sale deed was in his possession? 2) Whether the certified copy of the sale deed could be read in evidence even though it was the basis of the suit and was relied upon by the plaintiff in his pleadings? 3) Whether the appeal before the lower appellate court was incompetent because of the four defendants respondents dying during the pendency of the appeal and their heirs and legal representatives not having been substituted in their place? ;