Judgment SATYESHWAR ROY, JJ. Plaintiffs are the appellant. They filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed exhibit A executed by Bartu in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 5 on 12.6.1974 was void. The suit was decreed. The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. 2. Admittedly, the property covered by exhibit A as well as by exhibit 1 a (gift deed dated 15.10.1973) Belonged to Bartu, According to the plaint, Bartu by exhibit 1/a gifted the property to the appellants and the appellants accepted the same. They came in possession of the suit property. Respondent nos.1 to 5 claimed the property in suit. There, was a dispute between the parties with regard to possession. There was a proceeding under section 145 of tile code of Criminal procedure, The appellants then learnt that Bartu had executed a deed of sale (exhibit A) in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 5 on 12.6.1914. The proceeding was decided against the appellant, However, during the pendency of the proceedings the appellant filed a suit, Meanwhile Bartu executed a deed of cancellation or exhibit l/a and the deed of cancellation was marked as exhibit B. In short, the case or the plaintiff was that since Bartu had transferred his interest in the suit property by exhibit l/a, he had no interest left in the property and, therefore, could not have conveyed any title in the property by exhibit A; then latter was of no effect. 3. Two written statement were filed, one by Barto who was defendant no. 1 and the other by the defendant nos. 2 to 6. In the written statements various technical objections wore taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit. Common contention in both was that Bartu never executed any deed of gift in favour of the appellants. He was made to put his L.T.I. as witness on the documents filed by the appellants, Exhibit l/always therefore, not executed by Bartu and no interest was created in favour of the appellants made, exhibit l/a When he learnt about the existence of exhibit l/a. Barto cancelled the same by exhibit B. 4. He was made to put his L.T.I. as witness on the documents filed by the appellants, Exhibit l/always therefore, not executed by Bartu and no interest was created in favour of the appellants made, exhibit l/a When he learnt about the existence of exhibit l/a. Barto cancelled the same by exhibit B. 4. The trial court held that exhibit 1/a was executed by Barto and he by way of gift transferred his right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the appellants, The document was a valid document, consequently under exhibit A respondent nos. 1 to 5 did not acquire any title. The lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court. It held that exhibit l/a was not executed by Barto and therefore, no title passed under that exhibit to appellant. 5. On 4.10.1980 at the time of admission of this appeal; the following substantial question of law was formulated;- (i) "Whether the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the deed of gift (exhibit If A) was not legal and valid document of title? 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing Mr. N.K. Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the following substantial question be also formulated. (ii) the finding of the lower appellate court that the deed of gift was not executed by Bartu is vitiated by reason of the fact that the written statements of Bartu was used as a piece of evidence. (iii) the finding of the lower appellate court is vitiated in view of the fact that it did not take into consideration the reasoning given by the trial court before reversing the findings given by it, In my opinion these two question are vital for just decision of the appeal. 7. The relation between the parties is admitted. Gujra and Hamra wore two brother Bartu was son of Gujra and Nathu was son of Hamra. Appellants are sons of Nathu. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are two daughters of Bartu who were substituted after his death. Respondent no. 1 to 5 are sons of respondent no.7 8. Mr. Prasad submitted that the court below relied more in the circumstances which appeared on the facts of the case. Appellants are sons of Nathu. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are two daughters of Bartu who were substituted after his death. Respondent no. 1 to 5 are sons of respondent no.7 8. Mr. Prasad submitted that the court below relied more in the circumstances which appeared on the facts of the case. According to him on the basis or this the court below inferred that there was no reason for Bartu to make a gift of the property to the appellant when he had two daughters and also grand children. From a perusal or the Judgment of the court below if appears that from paragraph-17 onwards it noticed the circumstances on the basis of which it recorded a finding that there was no reason why Bartu would make a gift of his property to the appellants. In support of this finding, the court below relied on the statement of Bartu made in the written statement filed by him in the suit as evidence. It may be noticed that before the trial commenced, Bartu died. 9. With regard to point no. (ii). Mr. Prasad contended that the written statement or Bartu could not have been relied upon by the court below in corroboration or the circumstances noticed by it. Mr. Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the written statement could have been relied upon under section 82 clause (7) read with section 13 clause (a) or the Evidence Act, Mr. Narayan contended that the written statement of Bartu after his death could be used in the very suit in which it was filed Section 31 of the Evidence Act, provides that statement, written or verbal; or relevant facts made by a person who is dead or cannot be found etc. Are relevant under certain cases. Clause (7) of that section is one such case which provides that when the statement contained in any deed, will or other document which relates to any such transaction as is mentioned in section 13 clause (a) is relevant under section 13 clause (a) where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, assessed or denied or which was in consistent with its existence is relevant. According to Mr. According to Mr. Narayan, what the appellants were claiming was right in the suit property. 10. In the written statement Bartu asserted that he did not execute any deed of gift and this assertion according to Mr. Narayan becomes relevant in this very suit. In my opinion, written statement of bartu filed in this suit cannot be treated as “transaction” as used in section 13 clause (a); it was, therefore, not admissible in evidence, Further, it will be noticed from the language that the transaction which will be noticed from the language that the transaction which will be admissible must be transaction prior to the suit i.e., anti and not post litem. For this reason also, the written-statement was in-admissible in evidence. I derive support for this from Jhirngur Raut Vs. Emperor although in that case the same observation was made with regard to post litem judgment. For the reason aforesaid, it mist be held that the court below erred in law in relying on the written statement of Bartu. This point is answered in the affirmative. 11. From a perusal of the judgment of the court below it appeared that issue No. 3 was whether the deed of gift executed by Bartu in favour of this appellant was valid, legal or void. Issue no. 14 was whether the sale deed executed by Bartu in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 5 was void and illegal and was liable to be cancelled. For deciding both the issues in favour of the appellants, the trial court gave its own reasons. From a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court. I find that i.e. no where in its judgment noticed the reasoning of the trial court. The lower appellate court was required to notice the reasoning of the trial court before reversing the findings of the trial court. Since that was not done by the lower appellate court the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained. Point No. (iii) must also be decided in favour of the appellant. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside. The matter is sent back to the lower appellate court to give a fresh decision after giving opportunity to the parties of being beard. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.