LRS. & Ors. Vs. Bietshwar & Ors.  INSC 1465 (29 August 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5348 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.4998 of
2007) Laxmi Ram (Dead) By L.R. and Ors. ...Appellant(s) Versus Bietshwar Singh
Ors. ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Application for substitution is allowed.
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
By the impugned
order, High Court has dismissed the second appeal on the ground that no
substantial question of law was involved therein.
Having heard the
parties and perused the records, we are of the view that High Court was not
justified in observing that no substantial question of law is involved in the
appeal. In our view, the following substantial questions of law do arise in the
"(2) Whether the
findings of the trial court on issue No. (VII) that Pokhani inherited the
property as her husband Bifan Ram was the last male holder in the branch of
Rucha Ram is based on error of record in appreciating averments made in
paragraph 18 of the written statement which read with the averment made in
paragraph 10 of the written statement makes out a clear case that Bifan Ram
predeceased his father Rucha Ram, therefore inadvertently using the words
....2/- -2- that Bifan was the last male heirs becomes meaningless read with
the further continuous statement in the same sentence that Bifan Ram was the
last male heirs in the branch of Late Rucha Ram @ Rupa Ram who predeceased his
father and thereafter Rucha Ram also died and thereafter entire property
reverted back to the branch of Ramdhyan Ram? (3) Whether the findings on issue
No.(vii) is vitiated in law for being influenced by an error of record and mis-
appreciation and non-appreciation of evidences on the records as to who was the
last male holder?"
The High Court should
have framed the afore-mentioned substantial questions of law and decided the
In view of this, the
appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the second appeal is
remanded to the High Court. Upon such remand, the High Court shall first frame
the above-noted two substantial questions of law and decide the second appeal
afresh in accordance with law.
It is needless to say
that in case the High Court is of the view that any other substantial question
of law is involved in the appeal, such question may also be framed and decided
after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.