Harsh Kumar, J. - (1.) The instant second appeal has been filed against impugned judgment and decree dated 13.2.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No.267 of 1987, arisen out of Civil Suit No.770 of 1986 "Nageshwar Prasad and another Vs. Santosh Kumar".
(2.) The appeal was admitted vide order dated 10.4.2007 on following two substantial questions of law:- "1.Whether the Courts below having admitted three documents namely, Papaer No.10/Ga, 15/Ga and 16/Ga by written orders of Sri Chandra Prakash, XIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 18.04.1999 and the said documents were 'Janm Evam Mrityu Register' regarding family of Nawal Kishor deceased the date of death is shown as 27.09.1984, Mst. Sonpatti, Widow of deceased Nawal Kishor. The second is the 'Kutumb Register' of Nawal Kishor which shows Sonpatti is his widow, Gulab Kali W/o Nageshwar Prasad (Appellant), Phool Kali W/o Prem Shanker, Smt. Anar Kali W/o Santosh who admittedly are three daughters of Nawal Kishor. The third documents is the family register of Trivedi Prasad who appeared as witness for Defendant. The name of witness was given by him was Ram Baran in fact he was not Ram Baran but in fact he was Trivedi Prasad R/o Village-Sansarpur, Tehsil-Koraon, District-Allahabad. The family register of Ram Baran witness the question and answering regarding him obtained by the Appellant and reply given by the department from which it is admitted that witness who said that his name is Ram Baran S/o Jagat Dhari born on 25.02.1954 and is illiterate. In fact his name is Trivedi Prasad mentioned above. It has been filed to say that Ram Baran who was a witness to the sale deed of the Defendant, in fact never signed before the Registrar as witness and that said Ram Baran is not the son of Jagat Dhari instead he dubbed the Court. In fact his name is Trivedi Prasad S/o Jagat Dhari. The above said documents have not been considered in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, and whether the Lower Appellate Court were justified in ignoring the above said material documentary evidence? 2. Whether the Courts below were justified in accepting the sale deed which was not proved according to law in as much as none of the marginal witnesses have proved the said sale deed"
(3.) During hearing, the parties counsel submitted that the substantial questions of law framed earlier on 10.04.2007, at the time of admission of appeal are very lengthy and also ambiguous to some extent. It was found appropriate to reframe substantial questions of law for just and appropriate disposal of appeal and upon submissions made by parties counsel following three substantial questions of law were framed, replacing the earlier framed two substantial questions of law:- "1.Whether the courts below acted wrongly and illegality in disbelieving death certificate of Nawal Kishore as well as entries in the Birth and Death Register and Family Register with regard to his death, from which it is fully proved that Nawal Kishore had died on 27.09.1984. 2. Whether the lower appellate court acted wrongly in not relying on the additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC per list 11/C as paper No.12C, 13C and 14C viz., (i) copy of Family Register, (ii) question-answer regarding Ram Baran and (iii) Life Insurance Policy of plaintiff appellant no. 2. 3. Whether the courts below acted wrongly and illegally in relying on the sale deed dated 19.10.1984 in favour of defendent-respondent, though it was not proved in accordance with law.";