Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1628 (HP)

Kusum Devi v. Ram Kishan Melu

2015-11-03

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Regular Second Appeal has arisen against the impugned judgement of the learned District Judge, Shimla rendered in Civil Appeal No. 59-S/13 of 2000, whereby the latter partly allowed the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent herein to the extent that the sale deed Mark-B executed, qua the share in the suit property of deceased Ram Krishan Gupta, by his successors-in-interest was cancelled and set aside. Standing aggrieved by the judgement of the learned District Judge, Shimla, the appellants herein has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing it. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has fled the suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed of 7.10.1992 registered in the office of Sub Registrar of Documents (Rural), Shimla, registered vide registration No. 978, having serial No. 1, cover No. 63, further having serial No. 1, cover No. 644 and the same is pasted on pages 21-25 along with mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 to 7 not to do any further transactions or any agreement etc., which may change the nature of the suit property and for directions to defendant No. 8 to take an appropriate and necessary action as per law. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant by the landlord M/s. Lachmi Narayan and Brothers and the aforesaid property was later on bought by Mangat Ram Aggarwal and thereafter by Ram Kishan Gupta. It has been further pleaded that the suit property is situated in Cantonment Area at Jutogh Cantt. The suit property has been registered in the name of Ram Kishan Niranjan Dass. The defendants No. 1 to 5 are the sons or legal heirs of Ram Kishan and Niranjan Dass. It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendants No. 1 to 5 executed a sale deed which was registered vide registration No. 978 at serial No. 1 and cover No. 63 and page No. 30 of 7.10.1992. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 6 and vide this sale deed, defendant No. 6 has purchased the sets in the disputed property having survey No. 56/15, 56/10, 56/3 and 56/4 respectively for the sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 6 and vide this sale deed, defendant No. 6 has purchased the sets in the disputed property having survey No. 56/15, 56/10, 56/3 and 56/4 respectively for the sale consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. It has been pleaded that the aforesaid sale could not have been made, because the land actually belongs to the Cantonment Board vide Indian Cantonment Act, 1924. According to the plaintiff he got the repairs of the tenanted premises in the suit property in his possession with a view that the defendant No. 1 would sell the said set which is in his possession to him. It is further pleaded that it is the plaintiff who had first right to purchase the set, which was sold to defendant No. 6 by the defendant No. 1. Thereafter, the plaintiff had approached to defendant No. 8 for not registering the aforesaid sale deed under challenge, but no action was taken on it. It is further the apprehension of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 6 after having got the sale deed register in her name might cause irreparable loss or injury to the plaintiff, hence prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction. 3. The defendants contested the suit and fled separate written statements. The defendants No. 1 to 6 in their written statement have taken the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has not cause of action, no locus standi and is estopped from fling the suit. On merits, it is contended that the plaintiff has approached defendant NO.1 for the purchase of the set, which was in his possession, as tenant, however, the deal could not be finalized. It is further submitted that no doubt the land belongs to the Cantonment Board and cannot be sold out, however, the structure made on the aforesaid land belongs to the persons, who constructed those structures and no permission of any authority requires before selling it out. Defendant No. 7 in his written statement has contended that the defendant No. 1 had never applied for the repairs of the set of the plaintiff as pleaded in para-9 of the plaint. 4. Defendants No. 8 and 9 in their written statement have taken the preliminary objection inter alia maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and valuation. Defendant No. 7 in his written statement has contended that the defendant No. 1 had never applied for the repairs of the set of the plaintiff as pleaded in para-9 of the plaint. 4. Defendants No. 8 and 9 in their written statement have taken the preliminary objection inter alia maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and valuation. On merits, it is submitted that the sale deed was registered when it was found in order, as per law. The defendants have admitted that the plaintiff has moved an application for not entertaining the registration of the aforesaid sale deed, however, the application was found having no force. 5. The plaintiff/respondent fled replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:-- "1. Whether the sale deed dated 7.10.1992 reg. No. 978, registered in the office of Sub Registrar (Rural), is liable to be cancelled, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 5 were not legally entitled to sell the suit property to the defendant NO.6, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant No. 6, as prayed? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 1 to 6, 8 & 9. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD-1 to 6, 8 & 9. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to file this suit, as alleged? OPD-1 to 6. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD-8 & 9. 8. Relief." 7. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. In appeal, preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the judgement and decree of the learned trial Court before the learned first Appellate Court, the learned first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. 8. Now the defendants/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgement and decree. 8. Now the defendants/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgement and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 20.08.2002, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgement and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-- "1. Whether the lower Appellate Court has wrongly placed reliance on the provisions of Military Lands Manual which does not have any force of law being repugnant to the provisions of the Cantonment Act and the Rules? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has misapplied the ratio of the judgements quoted in its impugned judgment and decree and wrongly insisted for the proof and irrelevant facts when the document which was duly registered had presumption of its validity by virtue of the provisions of Evidence Act?" Substantial questions of Law No. 1 and 2: 9. A perusal of Mark-B unfolds the factum that the vendors therein being the successors-in-interest of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta and Niranjan Dass, had for the sale consideration recited therein conveyed thereunder in favour of the vendee, who is appellant No. 1 herein, their respective shares in the building christened as 56 Jutogh Cantt., Shimla. It is elucidated with specificity in Mark-B that sets Nos. 56/15, 56/10, 56/3 and 56/4 depicted in the map attached to the sale deed comprised in Mark-B stood thereunder conveyed to the vendee therein, who is appellant No. 1 herein. The plaintiff/respondent had cast a challenge to the validity of Mark-B by his instituting a suit for declaration seeking therein, its cancellation primarily on the ground that since the building uncontrovertedly stands located in a cantonment area and with there being a contemplation in the Indian Cantonment Act, 1926 and in the Cantonment Property Rules, 1924, of land, located in a cantonment area as the land upon which the suit property is located, vesting in the ownership of the Cantonment Board concerned, it was incumbent upon the vendors before presenting the instrument of conveyance for registration before the Sub Registrar concerned to have obtained, as mandated in the apposite rules, the previous permission or sanction of the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned. Since no prior permission or consent of the appropriate/competent authority of the cantonment board concerned was obtained or granted to the vendors, to execute sale deed, Mark-B, its presentation at the instance of the vendors was unlawful besides, its acceptance for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned was legally tainted. Consequently, it was claimed that the sale deed comprised in Mark-B is nonest and it be declared to be a nullity. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was partly accepted by the learned District Judge, Shimla, to the extent that the alienation of the share/interest in the suit property of deceased Ram Krishan Gupta by his successors-in-interest was declared to be nonest and a nullity arising from the factum of the successors-in-interest of the aforesaid having not proved theirs having acquired his interest in the suit property under a testamentary disposition executed by the deceased in their favour, though its execution in their favour stands manifested in Mark-B and its, hence, purportedly empowering them to execute the aforesaid instrument of conveyance. The learned District Judge, Shimla in his impugned judgment has recorded an affirmative finding qua the factum of Mark-B, an instrument of conveyance executed by the vendors whereunder, only the ownership of structure in proportion to their shares therein raised upon land uncontrovertedly located in a cantonment area stood alienated to the vendee/appellant No. 1, not suffering hence with a legal vice, especially with the provisions of the Military Lands Manual, the relevant rule whereof existing at page 254 which stand extracted hereinafter, casting a peremptory obligation upon the vendors to obtain prior permission or consent from the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned before proceeding to convey under it, the land upon which it exists or is raised did not hence either come into play nor stood attracted, moreso, when the instrument of conveyance comprised in Mark-B has with categorical specificity not conveyed thereunder land rather has conveyed to the vendee thereunder, their respective shares in the building or structure raised thereupon. "2. Transfer of properties held on old grants term from one party to another. "2. Transfer of properties held on old grants term from one party to another. (I)(a) Where old grants are not forthcoming and in the absence of any definite proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the land is held under the terms of an old grant and as such sanction must be obtained to a transfer;" In other words, the necessity of a prior permission or consent being obtained by the vendors from the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned was imperative, only in the event when the land on which the building/structure whereunder the respective shares of the vendors therein were alienated in favour of the vendee, was besides the alienation of the respective shares of the vendors in the building recited therein conveyed in favour of the vendee. A close and circumspect perusal of Mark-B delineates the obvious factum of the vendors therein having alienated in favour of the vendee their respective shares in the building located upon land uncontrovertedly owned by the Cantonment Board, Jutogh. There is amiss in the recitals of the instrument of conveyance constituted in Mark-B executed by the vendors in favour of the vendee, of land wherein the building is located whereunder they alienated their respective shares in favour of the vendee, having also stood conveyed/alienated thereunder in favour of the vendee. Obviously then when the land upon which the building wherein the respective shares of the vendors were solitary alienated under Mark-B, in favour of the vendee or when under Mark-B the Cantonment Board concerned was not divested of ownership of land, there was no mandatory/peremptory legal obligation cast upon the vendors to, before executing it or presenting the instrument of conveyance for registration before the Sub Registrar concerned, to obtain the prior permission of the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned nor also the Sub Registrar concerned was legally dis-empowered to accept it, for registration. Moreover, hence for the non obtaining of the requisite permission or consent by the vendors of Mark-B though ordained in the relevant portion of the Military Lands Manual which stand extracted hereinabove to be obtained by them from the authority concerned for validating the transfer of land under a registered deed of conveyance, especially when it stood not alienated under Mark-B in favour of the vendee, would not afflict the instrument of conveyance constituted in Mark-B with the malady of nullity. The reasons which have been afforded by the learned District Judge, Shimla, while discountenancing the espousal of the plaintiff of the sale deed constituted in Mark-B to be on the score aforesaid afflicted with the vice of nullity does not stand to be discountenanced. More so, the findings of the learned District of Mark-B being not beset with a purported affliction of invalidity arising from its execution besides, presentation and acceptance for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned, being not preceded by a prior permission or consent having been obtained by the vendors from the competent authority concerned of the Cantonment Board concerned, gains legal vigour sproutable from the portrayal for the reasons aforesaid of the aforesaid purported malady afflicting its validity not garnering any legal succour especially when a close and studied perusal of the recitals of Mark-B in entwinement with the apposite rules which stand extracted hereinabove do not enjoin upon the vendors to seek prior permission or consent of the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned, while taking to not transfer land under Mark-B. As a corollary this Court is constrained to impute conclusivity or finality to the findings aforesaid recorded by the learned District Judge, Shimla. Accentuation to the aforesaid findings is marshalled by the factum of DW-2 Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh while deposing on oath having recorded in his testimony the factum of ownership of building located upon land situated in the Cantonment Board area standing not vested in the Cantonment Board concerned but in the name of a private individual in whose name it stands recorded in the relevant record. An aura of conclusivity is acquired by the findings recorded by the learned District Judge on the aforesaid facet of the case besides they acquire an added legal impetus and momentum, especially in the face of the plaintiff/respondent having not assailed the findings qua the aforesaid facet recorded by the learned District Judge, Shimla in his impugned judgment and decree. 10. 10. The learned District Judge, Shimla, in his judgment and decree impugned before this Court had set aside the alienation or conveyance therein of the interest/share of the successors-in-interest of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta on the score that though there exists a recital in Mark-B of theirs holding the interest in the suit property of deceased Ram Krishan Gupta under a testamentary disposition executed by the latter in their favour, yet with theirs having not appended along with Mark-B the testamentary disposition whereunder they acquired the interest of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta in the suit property, they were legally dis-empowered to execute besides, present it for registration nor also the Sub Registrar concerned was empowered to accept it for registration. The essential nuance of the reasoning afforded by the learned District Judge, Shimla qua hence Mark-B being ingrained with a nullity was encapsulated in the factum of the successors-in-interest of Ram Kishan Gupta, for want of theirs appending with Mark-B his testamentary disposition executed in their favour, rendered them to be not holding any valid conveyable title in the suit property qua the interest therein of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta. 11. While affording an apt answer to the legal conundrum whether for the mere non appending by the successors-in-interest of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta, the latter's testamentary disposition executed in their favour qua his interest in the suit property with Mark-B rendered the instrument of conveyance comprised in Mark-B to be imbued with the vice of nullity, it is deemed apt and appropriate to advert to the apposite pleadings constituted in the plaint instituted by the plaintiff/respondent herein while his seeking therein the cancellation of sale deed comprised in Mark-B. An incisive perusal of the pleadings constituted in the plaint instituted by the plaintiff/respondent herein does not underscore the factum of the plaintiff/respondent herein having impeached the validity or legality of Mark-B on the score of an omission on the part of the successors-in-interest of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta to not append along with it, his testamentary disposition wherein he conveyed his interest in the suit property in their favour, for hence legitimising besides, vindicating their act of executing besides, presenting mark-B for registration or for also imputing legitimacy to the act of the Sub Registrar concerned to accept it for registration. Rather there is an exhaustive, ad nauseam and elaborate narration therein of the sale deed constituted in Mark-B being ingrained with the vice of nullity on the mere score of its execution and its acceptance for registration having not been preceded by any sanction or permission granted by the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned. With there being an omission of averments in the plaint instituted by the plaintiff/respondent, of the instrument of conveyance qua the suit property comprised in Mark-B suffering from invalidity arising from the vendors not appending the testamentary disposition executed by the deceased Ram Kishan Gupta in their favour conveying therein his interest in the suit property in favour of the legatees with Mark-B, want thereof in the pleadings ought to have sequelled an inference of the plaintiff/respondent having abandoned the aforesaid ground for impeaching the validity of Mark-B. Even when there was an abandonment of the aforesaid plea or ground on the part of the plaintiff/respondent to impeach the validity of Mark-B and such abandonment, as a corollary estopping the plaintiff/respondent herein to, on the facet aforesaid impugned the legality of Mark-B, it hence gave no latitude to the learned District Judge, Shimla to proceed to test the validity of Mark-B on the score of its not being accompanied by the testamentary disposition of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta whereunder he conveyed his interest in the suit property in favour of his successors-in-interest, namely, Sita Ram Gupta, Kamal Kishore Gupta, Shyam Gupta and Shiv Gupta, who under Mark-B alienated their shares thereunder in favour of the vendee nor it was open to the first Appellate Court to have thereupon pronounced upon qua its invalidity arising from the score aforesaid. Added impetus to the factum of the learned District Judge, Shimla for the reasons aforesaid being legally interdicted to test the validity of Mark-B on the score aforesaid, is lent by the factum that defendant No. 8, the Sub Registrar concerned, who accepted Mark-B for registration, has in his written statement denied the averment in the plaint of Mark-B having come to be unwarrantedly accepted for registration by him. Rather with both defendants No. 8 and 9 in their joint written statement having portrayed the factum of Mark-B on its being presented for registration on 7.10.1992, its having been found in order and its hence having come to be accepted for registration, imputes a presumption of validity to the factum of execution and registration of Mark-B. Besides, as a corollary to a presumption of validity investing the execution and registration of Mark-B, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff/respondent herein, to dislodge the said presumption by adducing cogent overwhelming and potent evidence. Even if, the plaintiff/respondent herein was for want of apposite compatible averments in the plaint estopped to adduce evidence assailing the validity of Mark-B on the score of it not having been accompanied by the testamentary disposition of deceased Ram Krishan whereunder his successors-in-interest hence acquired a legal leverage to alienate his share therein under Mark-B in favour of the vendee, yet dehors the aforesaid constraint which beset the plaintiff/respondent herein to impeach the validity of Mark-B which constraints operated even upon the learned District Judge, Shimla to on the facet aforesaid nullify Mark-B. Nonetheless, an incisive perusal in depth of the record may not sustain the reasoning afforded by the learned District Judge, Shimla in rendering findings that for non annexation with Mark-B by the vendors therein the testamentary disposition of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta and it even when it stood not elicited from the quarter concerned, it yet unraveled the factum of deceased Ram Krishan Gupta having not transferred thereunder his interest in the suit property in their favour to render them hence to be disempowered to execute it, leaving it as such to be ingrained with the vice of nullity. The apt evidence which dispels and ousts the reasoning afforded by the learned District Judge, Shimla for hence ousting the validity of Mark-B qua the share conveyed thereunder of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta by his successors-in-interest, is encompassed in the testimony of Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh (DW-2). In his cross-examination, there is an unfoldment of the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta on the latter's demise having applied for mutation of the share of the latter in the suit property. In his cross-examination, there is an unfoldment of the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta on the latter's demise having applied for mutation of the share of the latter in the suit property. He has also disclosed therein that along with the application preferred by his legatees for mutation of the share of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta in the suit property they had also appended with it, the testamentary disposition of the deceased. However, he has disclosed in his testimony that the application of the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta for mutation in their favour of his share in the suit property was kept pending arising from the factum of the pendency of the civil suit. With their being a forthright and candid display in the testimony of DW-2 Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant Cantonment Board, Jutogh, of the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta having applied for on his demise for mutation of his share or interest in the suit property and of the application for mutation being accompanied by the testamentary disposition of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta, did comprise evidence of the factum of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta having executed a testamentary disposition qua his interest or share in the suit property in favour of his successors-in-interest, who concomitantly proceeded to under Mark-B alienate his share in the suit property in favour of the vendee. With the existence of a portrayal aforesaid in the testimony of DW-2 Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh, it was incumbent upon the learned District Judge, Shimla to elicit from him the application for mutation preferred by the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta before the authority concerned for hence mutating in their favour the interest/share in the suit property of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta. Only on a concert having been made by the learned District Judge, Shimla to elicit the aforesaid application for mutation preferred before the authority concerned by the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta, from Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh as also the testamentary disposition deposed by him to be accompanying it, would have unearthed the factum whether deceased Ram Kishan Gupta, had in his testamentary disposition appended along with the application preferred by his legatees before the authority concerned, for mutating in their favour the share of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta in the suit property, had or not conveyed thereunder his share in the suit property in favour of Sita Ram, Kamal Kishore Gupta, Shyam Gupta and Shiv Gupta, who on its anvil proceeded to, while having a legal leverage execute Mark B and present it for registration before the Sub Registrar concerned. However, the learned District Judge, Shimla did not endeavour to make the aforesaid concert. His omission to make the concert in the aforesaid regard did not empower him to discard the testimony of Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh qua the factum of the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta having on his demise applied for mutating his share in the suit property in their favour, nor it gave a leverage to the learned District Judge, Shimla to dispel the factum displayed in his testimony of the apposite application as moved by the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta being accompanied by his testamentary disposition. Apart therefrom with the application for mutation preferred before the competent authority by the legatees of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta having been disclosed by Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh, in his testimony to have been kept pending arising from the pendency of a civil suit did not entail upon the Sub Registrar concerned to refuse to accept sale deed, Mark-B for registration merely on the factum of the share of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta conveyed to his successors-in-interest under a testamentary disposition executed in their favour by deceased Ram Kishan Gupta, having stood not mutated in their favour in the apposite record maintained by the Cantonment Board concerned. It was legally in-sagacious for the learned District Judge, Shimla to have discarded the testimony of DW-2 Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh, especially when he voiced the factum of the application preferred by the legatees of Ram Kishan Gupta before the competent authority for mutating in their favour the holdings/interest or share in the suit property having been accompanied by the testamentary disposition executed by deceased Ram Kishan Gupta in their favour also the learned District Judge, Shimla committed a grave legal misdemeanour in nullifying the validity of sale deed Mark-B qua the alienation thereunder, the share of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta by his successors-in-interest, who, as underscored by Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant Cantonment Board, Jutogh in his recorded testimony on oath, under the latter's testamentary disposition appended along with the application for attesting mutation of his share preferred before the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned, being his legatees are presumed to be legally empowered to execute it besides present as well as obtain its registration from the Sub Registrar concerned, on a mere flimsy pretext of Mark-B being not accompanied by the testamentary disposition of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta, hence, disempowering his successors-in-interest to under Mark-B alienate his share therein in favour of the vendee, especially when the said presumption stood undisplaced by elicitation of the apposite record by the first Appellate Authority from the office concerned. The learned District Judge, Shimla has not only travelled beyond pleadings besides has also undermined the probative vigour of the testimony of DW-2 Shri L.N. Sharma, Assistant, Cantonment Board, Jutogh with a forthright display therein of the vendors who alienated the share of Ram Kishan Gupta under Mark-B had while applying for mutating in their favour his share in the suit property had also annexed along with the apposite application, the testamentary disposition of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta whereunder the vendors while being his legatees alienated in their capacity as his legatees his share therein under Mark-B, or had hence also acquired the legal leverage to do so, especially when the learned District Judge had not made any endeavour or concert to falsify the said fact by eliciting from him the apposite record comprised in the application preferred by the legatees of Ram Kishan Gupta before the competent authority of the Cantonment Board concerned for mutating in their favour his share and its displaying the factum that they had not been in the testamentary disposition of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta appended with it, designated therein to be his legatees for concomitantly succouring a conclusion as untenably drawn by the learned District Judge, Shimla. For omission of elicitation of the aforesaid record it cannot be held that they held no subsisting title to alienate the share in the suit property of deceased Ram Kishan Gupta under Mark B in favour of the vendee nor it can be held that the presentation of Mark-B by them for registration or its acceptance for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned was lacking in legal efficacy. 12. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of the evidence on record. Such findings are rather anchored upon inadmissible evidence. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants/appellants and against the plaintiff/respondent. 13. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. In sequel, the judgement and decree rendered by the learned first Appellate Court is set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.