- (1.) The appellant-defendants are aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016 rendered by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby, suit for possession at the instance of the respondent-plaintiff vis-a-vis suit property has been decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
(2.) Mr. Vaibhav Narang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendants has raised multi-fold arguments which are enumerated herein below:- 1. In order to establish the claim of the possession, the respondent-plaintiff was to prove the title but only certified copies of the sale deed dated 25.06.1998 and power of attorney dated 26.05.1998 executed by the LRs of Bal Nath in favour of Satpal son of Ronki Ram, were brought on record, whereas, the appellant-defendants have acquired the ownership by virtue of sale deed dated 07.02.2008 executed by Krishna widow of Saudagar Nath and his son Rajnish Kumar. 2. He further submits that Bhag Mal was owner of the property and he has one son and three daughters. On his demise, the property devolved upon all his legal heirs. Whereas, Krishna wife of Saudagar Nath sold the entire property in favour of the appellant-defendants. The respondent-plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale deed and rightly so, the suit was dismissed. However, the Lower Appellate Court has committed illegality and perversity in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court by treating the certified copies of the sale deed and power of attorney to be public documents as per the provisions of Section 74 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act, which are not permissible in law. Section 74(2) of the Act reads thus:- "(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents."
(3.) In support of his aforementioned contentions, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Narinder Nath Kapoor v. Prem Nath Khanna and others, 2009 4 RCR(Civ) 515 and urges this Court to formulate the substantial questions of law.;