Research › Search › Judgment

Sikkim High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 63 (SIK)

T. Ongyal Bhutia v. Phumpi Bhutia

2014-09-10

S.P.WANGDI

body2014
Judgment Wangdi, J. 1(i). The Appellant-Plaintiff has come up in Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 27-09-2013 passed by the Learned District Judge, Special Division – II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No.12 of 2012, filed him for declaration, partition, recovery of possession, injunction and other consequential reliefs, was dismissed. (ii) The case of the Appellant as set out in the Plaint is that the Appellant is the son of Late Khichung Bhutia, born from the wedlock between Late Khichung Bhutia and his second wife, Smt. Indra Maya Tamang (Bhutia), Proforma Respondent No.9 (Proforma Defendant No.10 in the original suit). Late Khichung Bhutia died on 18-09-2007. He had two wives, namely, Late Gyam Phigu Bhutia, first wife and Smt. Indra Maya Tamang (Bhutia), second wife. (iii) From his first wife, he had two sons, namely, Jamyang Bhutia and Namgay Bhutia and six daughters, who are married for long and have been living separately with their respective husbands, except for one. The first wife, namely, Gyam Phigu Bhutia, who was the Defendant No.1 in the original suit, had been staying away from Late Khichung Bhutia since their separation about 34/35 years back. Of the two sons from his first wife who predeceased him, Jamyang Bhutia died in the year 1997 leaving behind his wife, the Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.2 in the original suit), three sons and two unmarried daughters who are the Respondents No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Defendants No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the original suit) respectively. (iv) From his second wife, Smt. Indra Maya Tamang (Bhutia), Proforma Respondent No.9, Late Khichung Bhutia had one son, namely, T. Ongyal Bhutia, the Appellant-Plaintiff and, three daughters, out of whom two have since been married and staying away with their respective husbands, except for one. (v) It is relevant to note that Gyam Phigu Bhutia, the first wife of Late Khichung Bhutia, who was the Defendant No.1 in the original suit died during the pendency of the proceedings and, therefore, in the present Appeal her name appears to have been deleted leaving the other Defendants, i.e., Defendants No.2 to 10, surviving in the suit. In the present Appeal, therefore, the Defendants No.2 to 10 have been arrayed as Respondents No.1 to 9. The Respondent No.1 is the wife of Late Jamyang Bhutia, the father of Respondents No.2 to 6. In the present Appeal, therefore, the Defendants No.2 to 10 have been arrayed as Respondents No.1 to 9. The Respondent No.1 is the wife of Late Jamyang Bhutia, the father of Respondents No.2 to 6. (vi) It is stated that Late Khichung Bhutia, who was also the father of the Appellant and the grandfather of the Respondents No.2 to 6, owned and possessed certain landed properties covered by plot nos.182, 192, 269 and 270 measuring about .3300, .2320, .78600 and .0200 hectares respectively, situated at Nazitam, Sang Block, East Sikkim, as described in the Schedule ‘A’ to the Plaint which is said to be the ancestral property of the Appellant and Respondents No.2 to 6. These properties, as per the Appellant, were acquired by Late Khichung Bhutia in different parts in different manner, either by inheritance or in exchange of his ancestral land or by purchase from Norkey Bhutia and Kipa Bhutia in the year 1967 vide registered Deed of Sale, Exhibit 1. (vii) That the suit properties being coparcenary properties, no single member of the family and/or a coparcener had the absolute right to alienate any portion thereof without the consent of the other coparceners as the parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The Appellant was born on 22-08-1987 and attained the age of majority on 22-08-2006, as would be evident from his birth certificate, Exhibit 2. (viii) That after the death of Khichung Bhutia, the Defendant No.1 in the month of January, 2007, accompanied by Respondents No.1 to 6 (Defendants No.2 to 7 in the original suit), came to the house of Late Khichung Bhutia and demanded that they should quit and vacate the residential house that they were living in and give up the agricultural land being cultivated by them. As per the Appellant, the house and the portion of Schedule ‘A’ land described in Schedule ‘B’ which were under their occupation, is the property of Late Khichung Bhutia. On an inquiry conducted by him suspecting some foul play, it was revealed that the Defendants No.1 to 7 were claiming Schedule ‘B’ property on the strength of a document titled ‘Bandabast Rajinama Patra’, Exhibit 3, which was said to have been executed by late Khichung Bhutia on 21-12-1994. On an inquiry conducted by him suspecting some foul play, it was revealed that the Defendants No.1 to 7 were claiming Schedule ‘B’ property on the strength of a document titled ‘Bandabast Rajinama Patra’, Exhibit 3, which was said to have been executed by late Khichung Bhutia on 21-12-1994. The document, apart from it being unregistered, was also invalid and void ab initio as Late Khichung Bhutia could not have executed it when each of the coparcener had equal right in the property. That the document is not a partition document but, merely a family arrangement which too is unrecognised in law. In any case, it has not been signed by all the members of the Panchayat and also would not fall within any of the three modes of transfer of immovable property recognised in Sikkim, i.e, by sale, gift or acquisition. Moreover, the Appellant was a minor when the ‘Bandabast Rajinama Patra’, Exhibit 3, was executed. (ix) It is contended that when the Appellant was entitled to half of the entire properties, Late Khichung Bhutia could not have agreed to such an arrangement that deprived him of such right. It is alleged that the document was executed under threat and coercion of the kith and kin of Late Khichung Bhutia and out of fear of them as he had married a Nepali women which was not recognised by the Bhutia Community to which he belonged. It is further stated that the Appellant came to learn that the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) managed to get the scheduled property recorded in the name of their father Jamyang Bhutia, the first son of Late Khichung Bhutia, on the strength of the document, Exhibit 3, dated 21-12-1994 and obtained the Parcha Khatiyan, Exhibit A. (x) The threats of the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) and the discovery of the foul play in preparation of Exhibit A, led the Appellant to issue a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the “CPC”), to the Defendants No.8 and 9 who are Respondents No.7 and 8 in the present Appeal, vide Exhibit 4, which was responded to by their letter dated 18-10-2007, Exhibit 5, informing that the land described in Schedule ‘A’ were recorded in the name of Jamyang Bhutia during the survey operations of 1976-1983. The reply, however, did not reveal as to why the name of Karma Tshering Bhutia and Khichung Bhutia did not appear in the remarks column. It is contended that the Parcha Khatiyan, Exhibit A, was illegal and prepared under misrepresentation of facts by the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) and without obtaining No Objections from the boundary holders amongst whom were Late Khichung Bhutia himself, his mother, the Proforma Respondent No.9 (Proforma Defendant No.10 in the original suit) and his sisters including the concerned Panchayat Members. (xi) It is stated that the entry in the remarks column with reference to the suit land was untenable and that the entire process in the preparation of Exhibit ‘A’ was carried out with mala fide intentions in collusion between the officials of the Defendants No.8 and 9 (Respondents No.7 and 8) and the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit). Verification in the Office of the District Registrar, East Sikkim at Gangtok, also revealed that a portion of plot no.192 out of Schedule ‘A’ property had been surreptitiously mutated in the name of Karma Tshering Bhutia, Respondent No.2 despite the objection filed by Late Khichung Bhutia at the material time. Even the recommendations of the Panchayat for partitioning the Schedule property amongst the Appellant and the Defendants were ignored. (xii) It is thus stated that the cause of action for the suit first arose on 23-01-2006 when the father of the Appellant had filed an objection before the District Collector, East Sikkim, Gangtok, for cancellation of the illegal mutation of the suit land in the name of Late Jamyang Bhutia, on 17-03-2006 when the Additional District Collector made efforts to settle the matter amicably and on his failure in his efforts, passed an order on the very day advising the parties to approach the Court and continues thereafter since the land continues to be recorded in the name of Jamyang Bhutia and Karma Tshering Bhutia and also, as the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) were persisting in applying their pressure on the Appellant to vacate the house and the dry field described in Schedule ‘B’ of the Plaint. 2(i). 2(i). The Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) contested the suit by filing a joint written statement by which they did not deny that Late Khichung Bhutia was the father of Defendants No.3 to 7, i.e., the Respondents No.2 to 6 in the present Appeal, and that they were born from his first wife and, the Appellant from his second wife, but found to have only questioned the legitimacy of the relationship of Late Khichung Bhutia with his second wife, the Proforma Defendant No.10 (the Proforma Respondent No.9 in the present Appeal). It is stated that there was no valid and legal marriage between Late Khichung Bhutia and the Proforma Defendant No.10. (ii) It is then contended that Late Khichung Bhutia, the husband of Defendant No.1 (since deceased), had deserted her and his children sometimes in the year 1972 to live with his paramour, the Proforma Defendant No.10 (Proforma Respondent herein), when some of them were still minors. Jamyang Bhutia, the father of the Respondents No.2 to 6, then had to take on the responsibility of looking after his mother, Defendant No.1 and the entire family. While doing so, he took over physical possession of the Schedule ‘A’ property and began cultivating it. It is asserted that Jamyang Bhutia’s taking over hostile physical possession of Schedule ‘A’ property to the knowledge and exclusion of even his father, Late Khichung Bhutia, was sufficient in continuity, extent and publicity. Faced with the difficulty in supporting the entire family with the meagre produce of Schedule ‘A’ land, Jamyang Bhutia joined the Army. From his earnings in the Army and the meagre savings of the Defendant No.1 (since deceased), the ‘kutcha house’ on Schedule ‘B’ land was construed by him and his mother, the deceased Defendant No.1. (iii) It is asserted that when the survey operations of 1976-1983 was undertaken in Nazitam Block, Sang Elakha, East Sikkim, Jamyang Bhutia had already perfected his title over the Schedule ‘A’ land on his own right and the Authorities recognising such right, recorded his name in the revenue records without any objection from any of the coparceners including Late Khichung Bhutia and his second wife, Proforma Defendant No.10 (Proforma Respondent No.9 herein). The records thus prepared during the survey operations finally got attested in the year 1984. It is asserted that Appellant was not even born when Jamyang Bhutia perfected his title as a right. The records thus prepared during the survey operations finally got attested in the year 1984. It is asserted that Appellant was not even born when Jamyang Bhutia perfected his title as a right. (iv) The assertion of the Appellant that the Schedule ‘A’ property was ancestral has been denied and contended that Late Khichung Bhutia did not have any source of income to acquire the land vide Exhibit 1 as claimed by him. On the contrary, it is asserted that the land was acquired vide Exhibit 1 from the hard earned money of Jamyang Bhutia who was serving in the Army and from the savings of the deceased Defendant No.1. Further, Late Khichung Bhutia also did not acquire the Schedule ‘A’ property in the manner as claimed by the Appellant, i.e., by way of inheritance or exchange or purchase. The claim of the Appellant over the property as a coparcener following the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law has been denied categorically and has asserted that Jamyang Bhutia during his lifetime was the absolute owner in possession of the property. (v) The genuineness of the Deed of Sale, Exhibit 1, has been questioned as being highly suspect considering that the date of its registration has been shown as ‘21-04-1999’. It has been denied that Late Khichung Bhutia was the owner of Schedule ‘A’ land but had been allowed to occupy a portion of it being Schedule ‘B’ property, out of compassion considering his dire circumstances and abject poverty, purely as ‘Jiwni land’ to be enjoyed by him during his lifetime and was to be reverted back to the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) on his demise. It is alleged that fearing such eventuality the Appellant was seeking to assail the ‘Jiwni’ arrangement. (vi) It was denied that the Parcha Khatiyan, Exhibit ‘A’, was prepared on the basis of document dated 21-12-1994, Exhibit 3, but was in fact prepared on the basis of the survey operations of 1976-1983. The transfer of portion of plot no.192 in the name of Karma Tshering Bhutia, the Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.3 in the original suit), has been sought to be justified in stating that it was by way of inheritance from his father Jamyang Bhutia who was the legitimate owner of Schedule ‘A’ property. The transfer of portion of plot no.192 in the name of Karma Tshering Bhutia, the Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.3 in the original suit), has been sought to be justified in stating that it was by way of inheritance from his father Jamyang Bhutia who was the legitimate owner of Schedule ‘A’ property. Allegations of collusion between the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) and Defendants No.8 and 9 (the present Respondents No.7 and 8) in making such transfer has been denied. 3. Upon consideration of the pleadings and after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, the Learned Trial Court framed as many as seven issues which are as under:- (1) Whether Late Khichung Bhutia had two wives, that is, whether Smt. Gyam Phigu Bhutia (defendant No.1) and Smt. Indra Maya Tamang (proforma defendant No.10) are both wives of Late Khichung Bhutia? (2) Whether the Schedule A property is their ancestral property or whether the Schedule A property was purchased by Late Jamyang Bhutia and Smt. Gyam Phigu Bhutia (defendant No.1)? (3) Whether Late Jamyang Bhutia was the absolute owner of the Schedule A property? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an entire half portion of the Schedule A property? (5) Whether the portion of land bearing plot no.192 was legally mutated in the name Shri Karma Tshering Bhutia (defendant No.3)? (6) Whether Late Khichung Bhutia had only life-time user (“Jiwani”) in respect of Schedule B property? (7) Reliefs, if any? 4(i). We are not concerned with issue no.1 as the finding on that in the impugned judgment is not under challenge, the Defendants No.2 to 7 who are the Respondents No.1 to 6 herein, having chosen not to file a Cross Appeal against the finding of the Learned Trial Court on this question contained in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the impugned judgment. The parties have rather proceeded under the premises that the Appellant is the son of Late Khichung Bhutia through the illegitimate marital relationship between Late Khichung Bhutia and the Proforma Defendant No.10 (Proforma Respondent No.9 herein). The entire focus of the Learned Counsel for the parties was on issues no.2, 3, 4 and 6 and, therefore, this Court appropriately would have dealt only with the finding on those but, for the reasons that will follow hereafter that restrains it from doing so. The entire focus of the Learned Counsel for the parties was on issues no.2, 3, 4 and 6 and, therefore, this Court appropriately would have dealt only with the finding on those but, for the reasons that will follow hereafter that restrains it from doing so. (ii) It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the Appeal, on 14-07-2014 on behalf of the Appellant, a CM Appl bearing No.196 of 2014, under Order XLI Rules 26 and 27 CPC, was filed seeking leave to produce additional documentary evidence consisting of the following:- (a) Annexure 1 – queries under Right to Information Act, 2005; (b) Annexure 2 (collectively) – Letter dated 25-11-2013 in reply to the document at (a) above; (c) Annexure 2 (collectively) – Set of three pages of Parcha Khatiyan pertaining to the suit land; and (d) Annexure 2 (collectively) – Three maps pertaining to different plots of land under Schedule ‘A’ of the Plaint of the suit. (iii) I have carefully examined these documents and find that these are of significant relevance to the controversies involved in the suit. The Learned Trial Court while deciding issues no.2 and 3 was of the view that considering the rival submissions, the question as to whether the suit property actually belonged to Late Khichung Bhutia was the core issue in the suit as would appear from paragraph 61 of the impugned judgment. These issues were decided against the Appellant on the ground that having regard to the principle of law contained in Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden placed on him to prove that the suit property is the ancestral property of Late Khichung Bhutia. While arriving at this finding one of the foundational reasons was that the Appellant had failed to prove his assertion that the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) had managed to mutate and register the suit properties in the name of Late Jamyang Bhutia by virtue of one the ‘Bandabast Rajinama Patra’ dated 21-12-1994, Exhibit 3. That apart, it was also held that even a part of the suit property said to have been purchased vide ‘Bikrinama’ (Deed of Sale) dated 25-09-1967 could not be established as the plot number contained therein was different and that it was not proved as required under the law. That apart, it was also held that even a part of the suit property said to have been purchased vide ‘Bikrinama’ (Deed of Sale) dated 25-09-1967 could not be established as the plot number contained therein was different and that it was not proved as required under the law. The Learned Trial Court was rather inclined to accept the version of the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) that the Schedule ‘A’ property got recorded in the name of Late Jamyang Bhutia during the survey operation of 1976-1983 directly relying primarily upon the evidence of G. P. Sharma, the Deputy Director, Land Revenue Department, Gangtok, D.W.3. (iv) The document now filed with the CM Appl under Order XLI Rules 26 and 27 CPC, more particularly, the document mentioned in serial nos. (a) and (b) above appear to have a direct bearing on this question. Query number 4 in the document at serial no.(a) and, answer to that in the document at serial no.(b) read as under:- “4. Kindly furnish the detail record of right as to till which date the aforesaid landed properties were recorded in the name of Khichung Bhutia, son of late Kam Chichu Bhutia.” “Ans 4. As revealed form (sic) the record the land was in the name of Khichung Bhutia prior to survey of 1976-83.” (v) Indubitably, therefore, the entire case would assume a different complexion if the documents referred to above are proved to be genuine. That apart, the maps, in particular the one pertaining to plot no.269, undeniably would be relevant to give clarity to the controversy between the parties in the suit as regards Schedule ‘B’ land. (vi) The only objection raised by Mr. T. B. Thapa, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6, against taking those documents as additional evidence in the Appeal was that the Respondents would be seriously prejudiced as they would be deprived of the opportunity of putting those documents to the test of cross-examination. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, on the other hand, submitted that these documents are purely public document and there should be no impediment for this Court in accepting those as additional evidence. (vii) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, the applications, the pleadings, documents and evidence on record. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, on the other hand, submitted that these documents are purely public document and there should be no impediment for this Court in accepting those as additional evidence. (vii) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, the applications, the pleadings, documents and evidence on record. As evident from the narrative of facts, the Appellant claims that as the Schedule ‘A’ properties are his ancestral properties, he is entitled to half of it being the son of Late Khichung Bhutia. (viii) The case of the Respondents, on the other hand, is that the properties were recorded in the name of their father Jamyang Bhutia, son of Khichung Bhutia, during the survey operations of 1976-1983 considering his possession at that time. They claim that such recording amounted to recognition of their long possession of the properties and that even before the survey operations their father Jamyang Bhutia had perfected his ownership by way of adverse possession having held it hostile to the knowledge and to the knowledge of even his father Khichung Bhutia sufficient in continuity, extent and publicity. (ix) While it is the categorical case of the Appellant that it was his father Late Khichung Bhutia who had acquired the Schedule ‘A’ land by various means, i.e., portions of it by inheritance being ancestral, portions by purchase and the rest by exchange, the Respondents No.2 to 6, however, are not clear on this. While D.W.1, Karma Tshering Bhutia, Respondent No.2, son of Late Jamyang Bhutia, has reiterated what was stated in the Plaint in claiming that the Schedule ‘A’ land was purchased by his father, Jamyang Bhutia from his income earned while serving in the Army and also having perfected his title by way of adverse possession even when the survey operations of 1976-1983 took place, the other son, Karma Yeshi Bhutia, D.W.2, on the other hand, has stated that the land was originally recorded in the name of their grandmother, Late Gyam Phigu Bhutia, having received it as ‘Daijo’ from her parents. But in clear conflict to the mutually contradictory versions of D.W.1 and D.W.2, their sister, Tshering Doma Bhutia, D.W.4, claims that the Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ land were in fact purchased by their grandmother, Late Gyam Phigu Bhutia. But in clear conflict to the mutually contradictory versions of D.W.1 and D.W.2, their sister, Tshering Doma Bhutia, D.W.4, claims that the Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ land were in fact purchased by their grandmother, Late Gyam Phigu Bhutia. (x) It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the Respondents No.2 to 6 are not certain as to how their father Jamyang Bhutia assumed ownership over the Schedule ‘A’ land. In any case, their version, particularly of Karma Yeshi Bhutia, D.W.2 and Tshering Doma Bhutia, D.W.4, goes against the very principle of adverse possession which contemplate possession hostile to the rightful owner. It is for these reasons that the document at serial nos. (a) and (b) in paragraph 4 (ii) above assumes significance. (xi) There is another aspect of the case regarding which the finding of the Learned Trial Court does not appear to be satisfactory. This pertains to the right concerning ‘Jiwni’ land. It is no doubt true that Schedule ‘B’ land has been accepted as being ‘Jiwni’ land of Late Khichung Bhutia but, the question as to whether or not the right of the beneficiary of a ‘Jiwni’ land gets terminated with his death and gets reverted, apparently has not been gone into. The Learned Trial Court has accepted the contention made on behalf of the Defendants No.1 to 7 that it was the deceased Defendant No.1 who had allowed her husband Khichung Bhutia to reside on Schedule ‘B’ land for his lifetime thereby drawing a corollary that he was only a lifetime user in respect of that land. (xii) In my view, the fact that the land is a ‘Jiwni’ land (not ‘Jiwani’ as spelt in the written statement and the impugned judgment) is one aspect but as to whether the land was given as a ‘Jiwni’ land to Khichung Bhutia by the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit) or that he had himself retained it by his own right as a ‘Jiwni’ land is another aspect. The third aspect that is most vital is as to whether the right of the beneficiary is limited only up to the extent of his lifetime or, as to whether the right of the beneficiary to bequeath such property is inherent in such right. Apparently there is no finding on the last two questions. (xiii) These are eminently significant questions in the light of the documents Exhibits 1 and 3. Apparently there is no finding on the last two questions. (xiii) These are eminently significant questions in the light of the documents Exhibits 1 and 3. Exhibit 1 which is a document dating more than thirty years would fall within the presumption provided under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, having been produced from the proper custody of the Appellant. It is in the evidence of D.W.1, Karma Tshering Bhutia that “vide Ext. 1, our grandfather, Khichung Bhutia purchased portion of suit land from Norkey Bhutia”. It has also categorically come in the evidence of Tshering Doma Bhutia, D.W.4 that “I know the suit pertains to plot No.269 only. It is true that I was told by my mother that the portion of suit property was purchased from one Norkey in the name of Khichung Bhutia. (witness volunteers to say that my mother had told me that all the money for purchase of that land was paid by her out of her own savings and that it was purchased in the name of Khichung Bhutia). ………………………. I know that the plaintiff is in occupation of one house along with two terrace of field but I do not know since when they are in possession of the said property. …………………………… Schedule ‘B’ is a portion of land bearing plot No.269 under occupation of plaintiff, T. Ongyal. It is not true that some of the portion of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties were purchased by Khichung Bhutia out of his own income and some of it were inherited by him (witness volunteers to say that all the said lands in schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ were actually purchased by their mother, Smt. Gyam Phigu Bhutia)”. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the common denominator in the Parcha Khatiyan, Exhibit ‘A’ (filed by the Defendants No.1 to 7), Khasra, Exhibit C (collectively) and the Sale Deed, Exhibit 1, is the name of the land as being “Gangyap” and, between “Sale Deed” Exhibit 1 and “Bandabast Rajinama Patra” Exhibit 3 being mention of plot no.43. On a close examination of these documents and the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.4, there appear to be reasonable grounds to believe that Schedule ‘B’ land is a portion of plot no.269 and that it was this land that was earlier plot no.43 which was purchased by Late Khichung Bhutia from Norkey Bhutia and another, vide Exhibit 1. (xiv) Exhibit 3, as per the version of Appellant, is just a document of family arrangement against which there is no specific denial in the written statement filed on behalf of the Defendants No.1 to 7 (in the original suit). Therefore, proceeding under the premise that Exhibit 3 is only a family arrangement, the law enunciated in Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi, etc., vs. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi, etc., : AIR 1961 SC 1077 which is followed in Sultan Singh vs. Ratan Singh and Others : AIR 1983 Allahabad 66, does not require it to be registered, it not being an instrument of partition. (xv) In any case even assuming that the documents do suffer from the deficiencies as found by the Learned Trial Court it is trite that those can certainly be used for a collateral purpose. The collateral purpose in the present case being identification and nature of possession of the Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ land by the parties. Under these circumstances, the additional document at sl. no.(d), i.e., the survey maps, would be relevant. (xvi) As already indicated above, the documents said to be placed as additional evidence on behalf of the Appellant appear to be of vital significance and likely to have a direct bearing on the outcome of the suit as it has the potential to displace some of the major findings of the Learned Trial Court on the questions already alluded to above. This, in my view, would fall within the meaning of other substantial cause’ as contemplated under Clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order XLI CPC. In the light of the above facts, without dealing with the various findings recorded in the impugned judgment, the case is remanded to the Court of the Learned District Judge, Special Division – II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, for the limited purpose of taking additional evidence on the documents indicated in serial nos.(a) and (b) under paragraph 4(ii) above. In the light of the above facts, without dealing with the various findings recorded in the impugned judgment, the case is remanded to the Court of the Learned District Judge, Special Division – II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, for the limited purpose of taking additional evidence on the documents indicated in serial nos.(a) and (b) under paragraph 4(ii) above. (xvii) The Learned Trial Court shall also permit the parties to take such other additional evidence if found necessary to arrive at an effective adjudication of the entire disputes and the controversies involved in the case. Upon taking such evidence and after hearing the parties, the Learned Trial Court shall render judgment afresh based upon the additional evidence and the evidence already on record. (xviii) It is also pertinent to observe that as noted earlier Defendant No.1, Gyam Phigu Bhutia, died on 15-10-2011 during the proceedings of the case, even before the issues were framed as would appear from the order dated 31-10-2011. As her legal heirs and successors were already on record as Defendants, steps for substitution were not felt necessary to be taken and, therefore, no steps were taken and the suit proceeded until its culmination with the impugned judgment. However, despite this, it appears that the name of the deceased Defendant No.1 continued remain on record when it ought to have been struck off. The Learned Trial Court shall take necessary steps also in this regard to ensure that only the surviving Defendants/Respondents remain on record in order to avoid confusion in the disposal of the case. 5. Since the additional evidence may result in the impugned judgment of the Learned District Judge, Special Division – II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, being altered, it is hereby set aside. 6. The suit shall be restored to its original number and the entire process as directed above shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this judgment considering that the suit is of the year 2008. 7. It is made clear that the remarks and observations made in this judgment shall not be construed as expressions of this Court on the merits of the case. 8. No order as to costs. 9. A copy of this judgment and the original case records be transmitted forthwith to the Court of the Learned District Judge, Special Division – II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, for its due compliance.