436/1986 whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 17.3.1986 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.1986 passed by the Trial Court in Title Appeal No.16/99 of 1984 85 affirming the judgment and order dated 19.5.1984 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No.
On or about 21.3.1987, the High Court formulated the following substantial questions of law Whether family arrangement companyld be discarded only on the ground that the same was number effected by registered document, even though it was the admitted case of the parties?
In the impugned judgment, however, the learned Judge did number approach the second appeal from the point of view that only the substantial questions of law were required to be answered for all intent and purport, it reopened the entire suit.
The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge holding that the deed of gift was legally binding on the plaintiff.
They in support of their plea, inter alia, raised a companytention that there had been a family arrangement in the year 1950 as also in the year 1954.
The original plaintiffs filed a suit, inter alia, for a declaration that the said deed of gift was void.
This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No.
The appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bettiah.
He had four sons, namely, Chhedilal, Madan Lal, Ram Awtar and Haridwar.
Indisputably, on or about 25.7.1995, Haridwar original defendant No.2, purported to have executed a deed of gift in favour of the appellant herein.
The discussions companytained in the judgment were number kept companyfined to the substantial questions of law formulated.
The property in suit belonged to one Ram Chandra Singhania.
Whether the Court below were companyrect in giving finding that the plaintiffs appellants have number supported their case of possession by filing even a chit of paper?
It entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence.
A second appeal was filed before the High Court on 24.7.1986.
It proceeded on the basis as if the parties had adduced evidence beyond their respective pleadings.
Madan Lal and Ram Awtar were the original plaintiffs.
68/1982, was set aside.
