JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, there, is, a substantial interconnectivity inter se civil suit No. 50 of 2004 (4 of 2001), and, Civil Suit No. 121 of 2001/101 of 2004, and, when both the afore Regular Second Appeals hence bearing RSA No. 605 of 2005, and, bearing RSA No. 633 of 2005, stand directed against concurrently recorded verdicts, respectively, pronounced, upon, Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2005, and, Civil Appeal No.62 of 2005, (i) thereupon, when both the afore RSAs were heard together, and, when on 27.03.2019, on conjoint submissions, of the learned counsel appearing, for the contesting litigants, the only substantial question of law enjoined to be formulated, is, the one which stands hereinafter, thereupon, both the afore RSAs enjoin meteing, of, a common verdict thereon:- “1. Whether non striking of issues, with respect to the pleaded factum of invalidity, of, sale deed, bearing No.253, executed on 24.06.1977, vitiates the trial of the suit?” 2. Without delving deep into the merits of the controversy, and, conspicuously given, the parties at contest in both Civil Suit No. 50 of 2004/4 of 2001, and, Civil No. 101 of 2004/121 of 2001, whereon concurrent decrees, were pronounced both by the learned trial Court, and, by the learned First Appellate Court, rather restricting the controversy, only vis-a-vis, the afore extracted substantial question of law, (i) thereupon, tenacity, of, the afore formulated substantial question of law, and, its impinging, upon, the validity (ies)/veracity (ies), of, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, hence is, required to be fathomed, and, meted an adjudication. 3. Civil Suit No. 50 of 2004/04 of 2001, stood instituted by one Ved Ram, visa- vis, suit khasra numbers, 3830, and, 3829, (i) whereas, civil suit No.121 of 2001, is, restricted to only Khasra No. 3830. In civil suit No. 50 of 2004/04 of 2001, one Ved Ram is the plaintiff, and, he has averred therein qua acquisition of title, vis-a-vis, Khasra Nos. 3830, and, 3829, by one Jaywanti, the mother of defendant No.2 (Kundan Lal), from, defendant No.1, through, a registered deed of conveyance, bearing No. 353 of 24.06.1977. In civil suit No. 50 of 2004/04 of 2001, one Ved Ram is the plaintiff, and, he has averred therein qua acquisition of title, vis-a-vis, Khasra Nos. 3830, and, 3829, by one Jaywanti, the mother of defendant No.2 (Kundan Lal), from, defendant No.1, through, a registered deed of conveyance, bearing No. 353 of 24.06.1977. The afore Ved Ram had averred, that, defendant No.2, upon, demise of one Jaywanti, had inherited the latter's interest, in a part, of, the suit land, as stood, acquired by her under a registered deed of conveyance bearing No.353 of 24.06.1977, (ii) and, thereafter codefendant No.2, hence alienating the suit land to the plaintiff, through, a registered deed of conveyance, bearing No. 586 of 27.4.1998, (iii) hence, the plaintiff one Ved Ram, in civil suit No. 50 of 2004/04 of 2001, rather, prayed that a declaratory decree qua his becoming absolute owner, in, possession of the suit land, be rendered, besides a decree for permanent injunction, for, restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit land, be also rendered. 4. Though, the afore pleaded factum hence enjoined, the learned trial Court to strike, an, issue, vis-a-vis, the afore pleaded factum, and, specifically appertaining to the validity of execution of sale deed, bearing No. 253 of 24.06.1977, (i) yet the learned trial Court, omitted to frame the afore imperative issue, and, rather proceeded to render an affirmative decree, upon, Civil Suit No.50 of 2004 (04 of 2001), vis-a-vis, the plaintiff therein, one Ved Ram. One Biru, arrayed as defendant No.1, in the afore civil suit, also instituted civil suit No. 121 of 2001 (101 of 2004), wherein, he claimed rendition, of, a decree for specific performance of contract, and, also averred, in his plaint, qua sale deed bearing No. 253 of 24.06.1977, for reasons set forth therein, being gripped with a vice of invalidity, and, rather the contract of sale executed on 6.2.1998 inter se him, and, defendant No.1 Kundan Lal, rather being decreed to be put to specific performance. 5. Upon, the afore civil suit No. 121 of 2001 (101 of 2004), both the learned courts below rendered findings hence adversarial to the afore plaintiff Biru. 5. Upon, the afore civil suit No. 121 of 2001 (101 of 2004), both the learned courts below rendered findings hence adversarial to the afore plaintiff Biru. Consequently, also the afore pleaded fact, by plaintiff Biru, in, the afore civil suit, and, vis-a-vis, the invalidity of sale deed, bearing No.253 of 24.06.1977, though, also enjoined striking, of, an apt issue in consonance therewith, yet, no issue appertaining therewith, was, formulated by the learned trial Court. 6. The afore conspectus, does unfold, that there being interconnectivity inter se both the civil suits, and, also there being, a, dire necessity, upon, the learned trial Court, to, in both the afore civil suits, strike issue (s), appertaining to the validity, of, sale deed bearing No.253 of 24.06.1977. The afore dire necessity, arises, for determining, the, validity of acquisition of title, by one Jaywanti, from defendant No.1 Biru, and, thereafter by defendant No.2, the sole legatee of the afore Jaywanti, latter whereof subsequently alienated rather one amongst, the suit khasra numbers hence common to both afore civil suits, to one Ved Ram, the plaintiff in civil suit No. 50/2004 (4/2001), (i) in respect whereof, concurrent declaratory decrees, and, consequential thereto hence decree (s) for permanent prohibitory injunction rather stand rendered. Importantly also the contract of sale, strived, to be decreed for specific performance,, by one Biru, plaintiff in civil suit No. 121/2001 (101 of 2004), (ii) contract whereof was entered with Kundan Lal, defendant common in both the afore civil suits, and, wherefromwhom, and, after the demise of Jaywanti, one Ved Ram, Plaintiff in Civil Suit No.50/2004 (4 of 2001), had acquired title, vis-a-vis, a part of the suit land, through, a registered deed of conveyance executed, vis-a-vis, him by Kundan Lal, (iii) obviously hence for avoiding rendition, of, conflicting findings, upon, the afore referred contested factum, in both the civil suits, reiteratedly enjoined striking of issue, appertaining to the, summum bonum, of the controversy, devolving, upon, the validity of the registered deed of conveyance, bearing No.253 of 24.06.1977. Conspicuously, the entire controversy, inter se, the parties would necessarily be put to a secured quietus, only upon, the afore imperative issue hence being struck. Conspicuously, the entire controversy, inter se, the parties would necessarily be put to a secured quietus, only upon, the afore imperative issue hence being struck. Reiteratedly, the afore issue, when imminently spurred, from the pleadings set forth, by the parties, yet it remained unstruck, and, also no evidence, in consonance therewith stood adduced, (iv) even though non striking of a vital issue, arising, from the pleadings, of the parties, may not impair or vitiate the findings rendered by both the learned Courts below, (v) upon, there being evident active participation, and, with fullest knowledge, of, the contesting litigants, in, the entire proceedings. However, the afore excepting principle, vis-a-vis, the non striking, of, a vital issue, as germinating from the contentious pleadings, reared by the legal combatants, in the civil suits concerned, hence not vitiating the trial, of, the suit, (vi) would yet not operate in the extantly prevailing factual matrix, for, the reasons (a) unless the afore sale deed was tendered, into evidence, and, was proven in accordance with law; (b) all, the, endorsements occurring thereon, and, imperatively as made thereon by the Sub Registrar concerned, being proven, in accordance with law, (c) given theirs acquiring, a, presumption of truth, yet the afore presumption rather would acquire an aura of validity only upon lack of adequate rebuttal evidence thereto, (d) reiteratedly, hence, for want of rebuttal evidence being adduced, thereupon, the presumption of truth attached, vis-a-vis, the endorsements existing, on the registered deed of conveyance, rather would be firmly engendered, (e) thereupon, for wants thereof, it is befitting to conclude, that, the rendition of concurrent decrees by both the learned Courts below, upon, Ved Ram's Civil Suit rather being infirm, and, being gripped with an entrenched legal fallibility, (f) also thereupon in case the afore presumption of truth, stands rebutted, thereupon, the rendition of concurrent decrees, upon, Ved Ram's Civil suit, would not acquire the utmost vigour, (g) reiteratedly unless, the endorsement made on the registered deed of conveyance by the Sub Registrar concerned, hence, does come under a cloud, or suffers erosion, (h) whereupon, alone Biru's civil suit seeking rendition of decree for specific performance, of, contract entered inter se him, and, one Kundan Lal, wherefrom Ved Ram acquired title, through, a sale deed 27.04.1998, would be amenable, for, being decreed. 7. 7. The upshot of the above discussion, is that, the exception, to the legal principle, that, the non striking of vital issue, hence not vitiating the trial, upon, there being evident, fullest participation of the contesting litigants, in the entire proceedings, rather not holding clout, in the extantly prevailing legal scenario, (i) and, when the afore ground, and, the afore vital issue ,whereon the entire fulcrum, of the lis, is, rested,and, upon, emanation of apt evidence, whereupon, the concurrently recorded affirmative findings, would, beget apt validation or invalidation, (ii) and, would also facilitate, rendition, of, unflinching findings, vis-a-vis, the validity, of, the acerbic contest, in, Civil suit No. 50 of 2004 (4 of 2001), and, upon Civil Suit No. 121 of 2001 (101 of 2004), (iii) thereupon, it is concluded that the non striking of the afore issue, hence, has rather vitiated the trial of the afore civil suits. Consequently, the afore substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant (s), and, against the respondent (s). 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are allowed, and, verdicts impugned before this Court are set aside. In sequel, both the afore civil suits are remanded to the learned trial Court, with a direction to frame the afore issue, appertaining to the validity, of, the registered deed of conveyance, bearing No.253 of 24.06.1977, and, thereafter permit the parties, to lead their respective evidence, on the afore issue, and, to also render fresh findings, upon, both the civil suits. The afore exercise shall be completed within six months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 17th 102 May, 2019. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.