Meeran Devi Ors vs. Nand Lal & others a/w Connected matter RSA No.514 of 2008 a/w RSA No.522 of 2008 Reserved on: 20.08.2026 10.09.2026 Present: Mr J.R. Poswal, Advocate, for the appellants in both appeals. The name of respondent No.1 stands deleted vide order dated 10.12.2021 in both the appeals. Mr Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2(a) and 2(b). CMP No.6865 of 2025 in RSA No. 522 of 2008 The appellants/applicants have filed the present application for framing additional substantial questions of law. It has been asserted that the learned Trial Court framed 9 issues for determination. Issue No. 2 related to the suit land being joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property. The learned Trial Court held that the suit land was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. An appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, which was admitted on the substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 framed on page No. 8 of the paper book. The learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings regarding the suit land being ancestral property. Therefore, another substantial question of law regarding the nature of property is required to be framed. This will not cause any prejudice to any party; hence, it was prayed that additional substantial questions of law be framed. 2. No reply was filed. 3. I have heard Sh. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel for the appellants-applicants and Sh. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 2(a) and 2(b). 4. Sh. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, submitted that the proposed substantial question of law arises in the present case, which was not framed at the time of the admission of the appeal; therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and an additional substantial question of law be framed. 5. Sh. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 2(a) and 2(b) submitted that the proposed substantial question of law is included in the substantial question of law no. 3 framed on Page no. 8 of the paper book; therefore, the substantial question of law is not required to be framed in the present case. 6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The substantial question of law no. 3 framed on Page no. 8 of the paper book relates to the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding the suit land being joint Hindu family coparcenary property; hence, the proposed substantial question of law regarding the nature of the suit land is already covered under the substantial question of law no. 3, which is framed on Page no. 8 of the paper book. 8. Therefore, there is no necessity to frame the additional substantial question of law. Thus, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th , September, 2026 (Ravinder)