Jagdish (Deceased) Through Lrs vs Inder Singh & Ors

Rakesh Kainthla, J

AThe present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Ghumarwin, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the suit land mentioned in the head note is ancestral property, plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 and defendant No. 1 constitute joint Hindu family, plaintiff No.1 is the owner in possession of half share of the suit land, defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest to transfer any part of the suit land to any person except a legal necessity, General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 12.12.1985 registered on 26.12.1985 in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghumarwin, at serial number 150, page number 275, book number four, volume No. 15 is illegal having been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence by defendant No.2 upon defendant No.1, and the order dated 01.03.1986 passed by Tehsildar, Ghumarwin, inducting defendant No.2 as a non-occupancy tenant over the share of defendant No.1 in the suit land at the instance of defendant No.2 is illegal and against the law, sale deed executed by defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.5 and 6 dated 24 .06.1987 does not affect the rights of the parties and the sale deed dated 31.07.1987 executed in favour of defendant No.4 is without any legal necessity or benefit to the estate. A permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendant No.2 from selling any portion of the suit land to any person was also sought. It was asserted that plaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. They constitute a joint Hindu family. The suit land is ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. This land was earlier owned by Thohlar, the grandfather of plaintiff No.1, and devolved upon defendant No.1 after the death of Thohlar. Defendant No.1 is a simpleton who cannot distinguish between good and bad. Defendant No.2 took Defendant No.1 to his house and kept him as a slave. He got executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour, which was registered on 12.12.1985. This General Power of Attorney was executed by practising fraud upon defendant no.1. Defendant No.1 executed various sale deeds based upon the General Power of Attorney and also inducted defendant No.3 as a non- occupancy tenant on the suit land. These do not confer any right upon the defendants. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

The suit is opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus-standi and jurisdiction, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiffs being estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was specifically denied that plaintiff No.1 is the son of defendant No.1 and that plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. It was also denied that plaintiff and defendants do not constitute a joint Hindu family or that the property in the hands of defendant No.1 was ancestral. It was asserted that defendant No.1 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 to save his property. Defendant No.2 had contested many cases on behalf of Defendant No.1 and incurred the expenses of ₹1 lakh. Defendant No.2 was doing his best to save the suit land. Defendant No.2 had executed the sale deeds at the instance of defendant No.1. The suit has been filed without any basis. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 26.10.1990: -

Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 constitute a joint Hindu family, and the suit land is ancestral and coparcenary properties of the parties? OPP.

Whether the general Power of Attorney dated 12.12.1985 is illegal and is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence as alleged? OPP.

Whether in the alternative, if the execution of the general power of attorney is proved, defendant No. 1 had no power to authorise defendant No.2 to act on behalf of the Karta of the Joint Hindu family? OPP

Whether the order dated 01.03.1986 of the Tehsildar Ghumarwin inducting defendant No.3 as a non-occupancy tenant over the share of defendant No.1 in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 19, 212 and 22 at the instance of defendant No.2 is illegal and against the law fact and procedure being without jurisdiction? OPP

Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6 with respect to the land comprising Khasra Nos. 306, 307, Kitta 2 Khata/Khatoni No.1/1min, situated in village Malari, as well as sale in favour of defendants Nos. 5 and 6 dated 24.06.1987 and three sales in favour of defendant no.4 on 31.07.1987 are illegal and void, and the same are also without any legal necessity? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is also entitled for permanent injunction? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

Whether this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit? OPD

Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their acts and conduct? OPD

Relief.

The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff examined plaintiff No.2 Kamla Devi (PW1) and Bhagat Ram (PW2). The defendants examined Ganga Ram (DW1), Hari Chand (DW2), Noor Deen (DW3), and defendant No.1 Jagdish (DW4).

The learned Trial Court held that plaintiff No.2 is a legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.1 is the son of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 got the property from his father, and the nature of the property was ancestral. The defendants failed to prove the power of attorney by examining the scribe or the attesting witness. Defendant No.1 got the plaintiffs' names deleted by filing an application before the Gram Panchayat, and their names were deleted without hearing them. Therefore, this deletion will not make any difference to the plaintiffs' case. Defendant No.1 admitted that the power of attorney was got executed by Defendant No.2 from him by threatening him. The sale deeds based on the power of attorney are non est. The suit was within the limitation. Hence, the learned Trial Court answered issues Nos 1, 2, 4 to 6 in the affirmative, issue No.3 as redundant, the remaining issues in the negative and decreed the plaintiffs' suit.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, who allowed it on 08.09.2003. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before this Court, which was registered as RSA No. 499 of 2003. This Court found that Raj Kumar had died during the pendency of the appeal. The judgment against the dead person is a nullity. Hence, the matter was remitted to the learned Appellate Court with a direction to consider the question of abatement after hearing the parties and consider any application for substitution filed before it.

The learned District Judge allowed the application on 08.11.2004. The file was assigned to a learned Additional District Judge (learned Appellate Court) for disposal. Learned Appellate Court held that Kamla Devi, plaintiff no. 2, lived as a wife with Jagdish Chand, defendant no. 1, till 1975, when she was turned out of her matrimonial home. She was pregnant at that time and gave birth to plaintiff No.1 in her parental home. The birth of a child during the subsistence of the marriage raises a conclusive presumption of legitimacy, and the learned Trial Court had rightly held that plaintiff No.2 is the wife and plaintiff No.1 is the son of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 got the property from his father, and the nature of the property in his hands was ancestral. He was not competent to execute any sale deed of the property without the legal necessity. Hence, the power of attorney and sale deeds executed by him were void. There was no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, the defendant has filed the present appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 31.07.2008:

Whether the learned First Appellate Court below is justified to differ with the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 65/95 titled Jagdish vs. Inder Singh and others decided on 08.09.2003 which was allowed in favour of the appellant/defendant in the facts and circumstances wherein this Hon'ble Court in RSA No. 499/2003 has set aside the judgment aforesaid only on the ground that the learned District Judge has not touched the ground of abatement while deciding the said appeal?

Whether the judgment and decree under challenge is vitiated and attached perversity in so much so the same has been passed against the mandate of RSA 499/03 decided by this Hon'ble Court between the same parties pertaining to the same lis wherein the matter was remanded back to adjudge the effect of abatement only?

The appellant has also filed multiple applications for leading additional evidence and framing additional substantial questions of law, which were ordered to be taken up for hearing with the main appeal.

I have heard Mr Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Ishan Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 4.

Mr Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. It was duly proved on record that plaintiff No.2 had left her matrimonial home. She was already married, and the presumption of legitimacy could not have been drawn. She married some other person and filed an application seeking maintenance. The name of plaintiff No.2 was deleted from the family of defendant No.1 and was recorded in the family of Jagdish Ram S/o Anant Ram, who had also executed a Will in plaintiffs' favour. The documents are sought to be brought on record to prove this fact. The documents are materials for the adjudication of the appeal pending before this Court. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court did not cover these aspects. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: -

(i) Union of India versus K.V. Lakshman & Ors 2016(4) Civil Court Cases 242 (SC);

(ii) Nitu Aggarwal versus Gireesh Gupta 2011 (2) Civil Court Cases 248 (Delhi);

(iii) Gurdial Singh and others vs. Mam Chand & Others RSA No. 2950 of 2007 decided on 07.10.201;

(iv) Bishwanath and another versus Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji & others AIR 1967 SC 1044

(v) Kalyan Singh Chouhan versus C.P. Joshi AIR 2011 SC 1127;

(vi) Afsar Shaikh & Anr versus Soleman Bibi and others AIR 1976 SC 163;

(vii) Dharmi versus Jania and others Latest HLJ 2011 (1) (HP) 3;

(viii) Sohan Lal versus Ghanshyam, Latest HLJ (2016 (HP) 718;

(ix) Om Prakash Gupta versus Ranbir B. Goyal, AIR 2002 SC 665;

(x) State Bank of India and another vs Emmsons International Limited & Another, (2011) 12 SCC 174;

(xi) B.V. Nagesh and another vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530;

(xii) Wadi versus Amilal & Ors, (2015) 1 SCC 677;

(xiii) Shalimar Chemical Works Limited vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and others; (2010) 8 SCC 423;

Mr Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Ishan Sharma, learned counsel for respondents Nos 1 and 2, submitted that the appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law framed by this Court. Defendant had not taken the plea regarding the marriage of plaintiff No. 2 with Lekh Raj or Jagdish, and this plea cannot be taken before this Court by way of additional evidence. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court cover the controversy between the parties. The scope of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is confined to the determination of the substantial questions of law, and the substantial questions of law proposed by the defendant/appellant do not arise in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be dismissed. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions.

(i) Gurnam Singh (dead) by legal representatives & others versus Lehna Singh (dead) by legal representatives (2019) 7 SCC 641;

(ii) Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 438;

(iii) U.R. Virupakshappa versus Sarvamangala & Anr, (2009) 2 SCC 177;

(iv) Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana. Pra and Delhi and others versus Tarsem Kumar and another AIR 1986 SC 1477

Mr. Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 adopted the submissions of Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

Substantial Questions of Law No.1 & 2:

Both the substantial questions of law proceed on the interpretation of the judgment of this Court in RSA No. 499/2003. It was submitted that the Court had remanded the matter to the learned Appellate Court to determine the question of abatement, and the learned First Appellate Court was not competent to set aside the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned District Judge. This submission is only stated to be rejected. The Court had specifically held while deciding RSA No. 499/2003 that respondent No.2 Raj Kumar had died during the pendency of the appeal, and judgment/decree passed in ignorance of such death was a nullity. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the learned Appellate Court to determine the question of abatement after hearing the parties and consider the application, if any, filed by the appellant for substitution. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna alias Ram Krishan Versus Bihari 2005 (6) SCC 300 that a decree against a dead person is null and void. This Court held in Pushpa Devi Versus Purshottam Dutt 2004 HLJ 910 that when the case was disposed of in ignorance of the death, further proceedings were nullity. Similar are the judgments in Jagdish Ram Versus Shivdev, AIR 2009 HP 88 and Tara Wati Vs. Suman AIR 2018 H.P. 137. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned District Judge was a nullity and could not have been considered by the learned First Appellate Court. Further, this Court had also held the judgment and decree to be null and void and the learned First Appellate Court could not have affirmed the same judgment after setting aside the abatement. Once the Court had held that the judgment and decree were null and void, the necessary consequence was that it ceased to exist in the eyes of the law and the learned First Appellate Court was required to write a fresh judgment adjudicating the dispute pending before it. Therefore, there was no question of differing from the judgment passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.65/95, and there is no violation of the mandate of this Court because this Court had held the earlier judgment to be a nullity and had passed the direction to decide the question of abatement or bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court had rightly acted as per the judgment of this Court, and both these substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

Applications for Additional Evidence

CMP Nos. 340 of 2007, 106 of 2010 and 7512 of 2015

These applications have been filed for leading additional evidence. It has been asserted that Inder Singh @ Dalbir Singh was born to Kamla Devi and one Jagdish Ram S/o Sh. Anant Ram. Kamla Devi was married to Lekh Raj before her marriage to Jagdish Ram S/o Anant Ram. Taking advantage of the similarity of the name of the defendant, Jagdish, with Jagdish Ram S/o Anant Ram, plaintiff no. 1 filed a false suit against the defendant. Jagdish Ram S/o Anant Ram died on 12.08.2004, and his property was inherited by his widow, Kamla Devi, based on a Will executed by him. This Will also refer to Inder Singh. The applicant came to know of these documents in the month of April 2007 and could not file them before the learned Courts below. The other documents came to his notice on 18.09.2009, and certified copies were obtained on 23.12.2009. Kamla Devi had also instituted a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against defendant no. 1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amb, which was dismissed on 18.09.2009 after holding that she had married Lekh Raj, son of Sunder and Jagdish Ram, son of Anant Ram. She also filed a revision petition, which was dismissed. These documents are essential for the determination of the dispute. Hence the applications.

No reply to the applications was filed.

The defendants asserted in para 1 of their written statement that plaintiff No.2 has contracted a second marriage. Therefore, she is not the wife of defendant No.1. No other plea was taken by the defendants. It was not stated that plaintiff No.2 was married to Lekh Raj or that Inder Singh, alias Dalbeer Singh, was born to Kamla Devi and Jagdish Ram S/o Anant Ram. No plea was taken that Kamla Devi was married to Lekh Raj; she left her husband and married Jagdish Ram S/o Anant Ram. No plea regarding the execution of the Will or the attestation of the mutation of the inheritance was taken. Therefore, it is apparent that additional evidence is sought to be led regarding the facts which were never pleaded before the learned Trial Court. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Ahmed v. Abdul Shukoor, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1787, that the additional evidence can only be led if the foundation for the evidence is laid in the pleadings. It was observed:

"8. In our opinion, before undertaking the exercise of considering whether a party is entitled to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of such party to determine if the case sought to be set up is pleaded so as to support the additional evidence that is proposed to be brought on record. In the absence of necessary pleadings in that regard, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result in an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequence, as it may not be permissible to take such evidence into consideration. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491: AIR 2009 SC 1103 and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148. Thus, besides the requirements prescribed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code being fulfilled, it would also be necessary for the Appellate Court to consider the pleadings of the party seeking to lead such additional evidence. It is only thereafter, on being satisfied that a case as contemplated by the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code has been made out, that such permission can be granted. In the absence of such exercise being undertaken by the High Court in the present case, we are of the view that it committed an error in allowing the application moved by the defendant for leading additional evidence."

In the present case, the facts were not pleaded, and the additional evidence cannot be led.

It was suggested to Kamla Devi in her cross-examination that she had a relationship with Bantu, and a child was born because of the relationship between her and Bantu. It was nowhere suggested to her that she had married Lekh Raj or Jagdish Ram, son of Anant Ram, and that plaintiff No.1 was born to her from her relationship with Jagdish Ram, son of Anant Ram. Therefore, this was also not a case suggested during the cross-examination of plaintiff No.2.

Jagdish (DW4) admitted in his cross-examination that he was married to Kamla Devi, but she had left the home. She is residing at Nangal. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was married at the age of 16-17 years. He also admitted that he had filed the application for the deletion of the plaintiffs' names at the instance of Krishnu. He also admitted that Krishnu had asked him to state before the Court that Inder Singh was not his son, and in case he would not state such a fact, Krishnu would beat him.

Therefore, the defendant never disputed his marriage to Kamla Devi. Even if Kamla Devi had solemnised a second marriage after giving birth to plaintiff no. 1, it would not make any difference as far as his paternity is concerned. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently found, based on the evidence, that Kamla Devi was pregnant when she left the home. The marriage between Kamla Devi and defendant Jagdish subsisted at that time, and the presumption of paternity would apply to the present case. Hence, the subsequent marriage to Lekh Raj or Jagdish S/o Anant Ram would be irrelevant to determine the present controversy. Hence, the additional evidence cannot be taken on record.

In view of the above, the additional evidence sought to be led was not pleaded and is not relevant for determining the controversy pending before the Court. Therefore, the present applications fail, and they are dismissed. Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

CMP No. 7180 of 2016

The present application has been filed for framing of the following additional substantial questions of law:

Whether the courts below were justified in holding that there has been a joint Hindu Family between the appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 especially in view of the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 were living separately since, 1976 and respondent No.4 had contracted marriage with a third person in the absence of any cogent evidence with respect to the same and has mis read and mis-interpreted the evidence led by respondents No.1 and 2 with respect to the same?

Whether the judgment passed by the trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the trial court failed to frame any issue with respect to states of respondents No.1 and 2 vis-a-vis the appellant and proceeding with the case with the presumption that such status was admitted by the appellant.

Whether First Appellate Court was right in framing a point regarding the status of the parties in the absence of any issue framed by the trial court and findings thereupon?

Whether this Hon'ble Court vide order of remand dated 08.06.2004 passed in RSA No.499/2003 had directed the First Appellate Court to reconsider and re-appreciate the entire evidence again in view of the observations made in the said judgment with a direction to the District Judge to consider the question of abatement after hearing the parties and passed appropriate orders and in case any application is filed by the respondents, after substitution of legal representatives the same shall be decided at its any merits by learned District Judge?

Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court is sustainable in the absence of any findings regarding the status of the family of respondents No.1 and 2 vis-a-vis the appellant?

Whether the points framed by the First Appellate Court covered the entire controversy involved in the suit and the judgment passed by the courts is not sustainable in view of the said findings?

It has been asserted that the appellant had framed substantial questions of law mentioned at page 8. The substantial questions of law framed by the Court do not contain all the substantial questions of law that arose for determination in this appeal. Hence, it has been prayed that the present application be allowed and the proposed substantial questions of law be framed.

The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were admitted to the extent that the appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law framed by the Court on 31.07.2008. It was asserted that the other questions of law were pressed at that stage but were consciously rejected by the Court. The applicants are seeking to recall the order dated 31.07.2008, which is impermissible. These substantial questions of law are being proposed because the applications for leading additional evidence have been filed, which can only be led if the proposed substantial questions of law are framed. The application for additional evidence is not relevant to the substantial questions of law framed by the Court. The non-applicants would suffer an irreparable loss in case the proposed substantial questions of law are framed. Hence, it was prayed that the application be dismissed.

The appellant Jagdish admitted in his cross-examination that he had got the suit land from his father. The copy of the mutation (Ext.P1) mentions that Dina Nath, the owner, had died and was survived by Jagdish. No objection was raised by any person, and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Jagdish. Therefore, the admission made by the defendant and the revenue record proved that the suit land was inherited by the defendant from his father. Hence, the nature of the property in his hand would be ancestral property. Even if the son had separated from his father, but there was no formal partition, a joint Hindu family property would not cease to exist. Therefore, the proposed substantial question of law No.1 does not arise in the present case.

Jagdish had inherited the suit land from his father.

He had not specifically denied the averment made in the plaint regarding the ancestral nature of the suit land. Therefore, there was no specific denial, and the fact was deemed to be admitted. Learned Trial Court had framed a specific issue No.1 regarding the nature of the suit land being ancestral and coparcenary property, and the learned Appellate Court was justified in adjudicating upon this issue. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.2 does not arise.

Proposed substantial question of law number 3 also does not arise because the learned Trial Court had framed a specific issue regarding the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 constituting a joint Hindu family. Thus, the relationship between the parties was in issue, and the learned Appellate Court was justified in determining this issue.

This proposed substantial question of law no. 4 is already covered by the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 framed by this Court.

The learned First Appellate Court has specifically held that plaintiff No.2 was the wife and plaintiff No.1 is the son of the defendant. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no finding regarding the status of the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the proposed substantial question of law no. 5 does not arise.

The learned Appellate Court frames the point for determination in accordance with Order 20 for its convenience. The dispute between the parties related to the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and the nature of the suit land. These questions were determined by the learned First Appellate Court, and it cannot be said that there was no proper determination by the learned First Appellate Court. Hence, this proposed substantial question of law no. 6 also does not arise in the present case.

Consequently, the present application fails and is dismissed.

In U.R. Virupakshappa (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an opportunity has to be afforded to the other side on the additional substantial questions of law framed during the hearing. There is no dispute with this proposition of law. However, since no additional substantial questions of law have been framed, this judgment does not apply to the present case.

In Gurnam Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the framing of substantial questions of law is a sine qua non for the adjudication of the Regular Second Appeal before the Court, and the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in the second appeal. This judgment also does not apply to the present case.

In State Bank of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the First Appellate Court is required to consider all questions of fact and law before setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. In the present case, the First Appellate Court had not set aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court but affirmed it, and the cited judgment does not apply to the present case.

In B.V. Nagesh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court is bound to frame the points for determination, render the decision thereon and provide the reasons for the decision. In the present case, the learned Appellate Court had framed the points for determination and provided the reasons, and the cited judgment does not apply to the present case.

In Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd (supra), it was held that the admissibility of the document is to be decided at the stage of the admission instead of leaving it to be decided subsequently. In the present case, the admissibility of the document does not arise for determination. It was further held that where the wrong procedure was adopted by the Trial Court for admission of the evidence, the Appellate Court can take the additional evidence. In the present case, no wrong procedure was adopted, and the cited judgment does not apply to the present case.

In Wadi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the additional evidence can be taken by the Court to do justice and is not dependent upon the vigilance or negligence of the parties. In the present case, the document/additional evidence is not required to do complete justice, and in fact, the additional evidence sought to be led is without any foundation in the pleading. Therefore, this judgment also does not apply to the present case.

In Kshitish Chandra Purkait (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and should afford an opportunity when an additional substantial question of law is framed. In the present case, the proposed substantial questions of law are not found to be substantial questions of law and do not arise for determination in the present case. Hence, the cited judgment does not apply.

In K.V. Lakhsman (supra), it was held that additional evidence can be admitted when the application contains necessary averments as to why the additional evidence could not be led before the learned Trial Court. In the present case, such an averment is lacking in the application, and it has only been stated that the applicant came to know about the additional evidence in the years 2007 and 2009, which is no reason at all.

Therefore, this judgment, instead of helping the appellant, goes against them.

Nitu Aggarwal (supra) deals with the judicial separation and is not relevant.

Gurdial Singh and others (supra) deal with the authenticity of the official documents. There can be no dispute with the preposition of law that the official documents are to be presumed to be correct, but this judgment does not apply to the present case.

The page number in 2011 (2) RLR has not been mentioned, and nothing can be said about it.

In Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is impermissible to lead evidence in support of a plea which was never taken in the pleadings. In the present case, the evidence sought to be led is regarding a plea that was not taken, and this judgment does not help the appellants.

In Om Prakash Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the subsequent event can be brought on record if a foundation is laid for it by way of amendment. In the present case, no application for amendment has been filed, and this judgment will not help the appellants.

In Afsar Shaikh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence regarding the undue influence has to be specific and founded on the plea. In the present case, even though the plea of undue influence was taken by the plaintiffs, the suit was decided based on the ancestral nature of the property. Therefore, the cited judgment will not help the appellants.

In Sohan Lal (supra), it was held that the person challenging the transaction has to show that it was a sham and fraudulent one, and a registered document is presumed to be validly executed. This question does not arise in the present case, as no person has challenged the validity of the registered deed on the ground of it being a sham.

In Bishwanath (supra), it was held that the court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. This judgment does not help the appellants and goes against them.

Therefore, none of the cited judgments applies to the present case.

Final Order:

In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below. Hence, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

Records of the learned Courts below be sent down forthwith.