1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 522 of 2004 1 - Dadhibal Singh (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-06-2024. 1.1 - Bhimendra Singh S/o Late Dadhibal Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Singdai Road Mohara, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Himanchal Singh (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-06-2024. 2.1 - Rachana Singh Chandel W/o Ashwani Singh Chandel Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Gumka, Tahsil Gumka, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2.2 - Renu Khileswari W/o Ramkumar Chauhan Aged About 44 Years R/o Birgaon Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.3 - Sanjay Singh Thakur S/o Late Himachal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o New Khursipar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2.4 - Somendra Singh Thakur S/o Late Himachal Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o New Khursipar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jeevrakhan Singh S/o Late Jaikaran Singh Alias Gaya Singh, Aged About 53 Years R/o Singdai, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Teejanbai D/o Shri Jaikaran Singh, Aged About 50 Years W/o Shri Pancham Singh Thakur, R/o Navapara, Rajim, C/o Pohamill, Rajim, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - Smt. Pramila Bai W/o Dauva Singh Thakur, Aged About 47 Years D/o Jaikaran Singh, C/o Shri Dauva Singh Thakur, Music Teacher, R/o Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ................Defendants , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Lal Singh (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 29- 06-2016 And 14-07-2016. 1.1 - Smt. Dela Devi Wd/o Late Lal Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Dumardih Kala, Post- Khapari Khurd, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Smt. Anusuiya Devi W/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 47 Years R/o Behind Shiv Mandir, Subhash Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Smt. Annapurna Devi Wd/o Late Mohan Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Ispat Nagar Behind Sai Mandir, Bhilai, Post- Risali Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Murli Singh Thakur S/o Late Lal Singh, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Dumardih Kala, Post- Khapari Khurd, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 1.5 - Smt. Safara Devi W/o Chitranjan Singh, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Khapari Khurd, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 1.6 - Smt. Bitawan Devi W/o Parmeshwar Singh, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Ruse, Post- Thankhamariya, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 1.7 - Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Jay Prakash, Aged About 36 Years R/o Badaipara Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 1.8 - Manohar Singh S/o Late Lal Singh, Aged About 54 Years R/o Jawahar Nagar, Plot No.292 Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - A Smt. Mithlesh W/o Ashwani Singh, Aged About 30 Years D/o Late Jagdish Singh, R/o Pandariya, Tah. Pandariya, Distt. Kawardha, 3 Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2.1 - Mahesh Singh S/o Late Jagdish Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dumardih, P.O. Khaprikhurd, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2.2 - Vikesh Singh Alias Golu S/o Late Jagdish Singh, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dumardih, P.O. Khaprikhurd, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2.3 - Dinesh Singh S/o Late Shri Jagdish Singh, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dumardih, P.O. Khaprikhurd, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Surajbhan Singh S/o Late Kanwal Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dumardih, P.O. Khaparikhurd, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Savitabai W/o Late Kashi Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Aari, Tahsil Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Kuntibai Dead Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 29-06-2016 And 14-07-2016. 5.1 - Smt. Shardabai W/o Vinay Singh, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Rauta, Post- Temri, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 5.2 - Devanand S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post- Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5.3 - Smt. Lalita Bai W/o Jalam Singh, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Siloda, Post- Rasmada, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 5.4 - Smt. Ratnabai W/o Santosh Singh, Aged About 40 Years R/o Chandri Chowk Durg, Post And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5.5 - Tej Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post- Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Devkibai (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 4 6.1 - (A) Shri Manoj Singh Gautam S/o Shri Kishan Singh Gautam Aged About 56 Years R/o Pararas Ward No. 19, District - Baloda (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 6.2 - (B) Sandhaya Chandel Wd/o Late Ashok Singh Chandel Aged About 54 Years R/o Kalkasa, P.O Dhudhli, District- Baloda, (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 6.3 - (C) Smt. Vidya Singh W/o Shri Ramavtar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Bamhni, P.O. Kanhera, Tahsil And Police Station Khamhariya, District- Bemetara (C.G) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 6.4 - (D) Smt. Sanjila Singh W/o Surendra Singh Rajput Aged About 50 Years R/o Behind Rest House Thetwar Para, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 6.5 - (E) Smt. Seema Rajput W/o Shri Mukesh Singh Rajput Aged About 46 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Near Tarun Bazar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 6.6 - (F) Smt. Rekha Singh W/o Pawan Singh Rajput Aged About 48 Years R/o Pawan Kirana Store, In Front Of Nawapara Talab, District- Durg (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 6.7 - (G) Smt. Vimala Singh W/o Shri Santosh Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Behind Irrigation Department Shyampur, Chhuikhadan, Gandai, District- Khairagarh (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 6.8 - (H) Smt. Satyarani W/o Shir Basant Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Bus Stand Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-03-2025 7 - The Nayab Tahsildar, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Acting Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .................Defendants, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Date of Hearing : 21.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 5 For Appellants : Mrs. Meera Ansari, Advocate alongwith Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate For Respondents No. No. 1(A) to (H), 2(A) to (D), 3, 4, 5(A) to (E) and 6(A) to (H) : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey CAV Order 1) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2000 dated 25.9.2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Khairagarh in Civil Suit No. 22-A/1988 dated 27.8.1999 was set aside. 2) This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 2.9.2024 on following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether, the first Appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court by holding that the plaintiffs are having title over the suit property ? 2. Whether, the learned first Appellate Court has rightly held that the suit did not abate due to death of the plaintiff No. 2-Jagdish Singh on 5.6.1997 ? 3) Parties to the suit belong to one and same family. Ratmat Singh Singh had four issues, namely, Syamlal, Sobha, Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh. Legal representatives of 6 Kanwal Singh filed civil suit and hereinafter they will be referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ and legal representatives of Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh will be referred to as ‘defendants’. A detailed Family Tree between the parties is as under :- Ratmat Singh Syamlal Sobha Kanwal Singh Jaikaran Singh Lalsingh Jagdish Singh Surajbhan Singh Kashi Singh Kanti Bai Devaki Bai Dadhibal Singh Himachal Singh Jivrakhan Tijan Bai Pramila 4) Initially, four children of Ratmat Singh held lands in two Villages, namely, Daihan and Dumardih and there was partition amongst them, which took place prior to abolition of estate whereby Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh got 70 acres of land in Village Dumardih. Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh was in service at Tatanagar and Kanwal Singh was an agriculturist. The lands situated over ten survey numbers ad-measuring 17.14 acres located at Village Pachmedi, Tehsil – Khairagarh were recorded in the names of Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh as the lands were jointly purchased by them through registered sale-deeds in consideration of Rs. 1,500/-. Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh took loan of Rs. 600/- from one Hiralal Seth and for refund of loan amount, Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh and Kanwal Singh executed a registered sale-deed on 16.8.1955 with regard to land ad-measuring 7.65 acres out of 17.14 acres and 7 there was specific recital in the sale-deed that it was executed for discharge of loan liability. The remaining 9.08 acres of land is the suit property. 5) Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants inter-alia on the ground that there was partition of 17.14 acre of land between two brothers in the year 1955. It was pleaded that the two brothers had purchased 17.14 acres of land for sale consideration of Rs. 1150/. Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh took loan of Rs. 600/- from Hiralal Seth on interest @ two paisa per Rs. 100/- per month to make payment of his share of sale consideration Rs. 575/-. The said amount was given by Hiralal Seth on 9.1.1953 and the same date, an agreement was entered. It was further pleaded that Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh failed to repay the loan amount Rs. 600/-, therefore he sold his share ad-measuring 7.65 acres. They further pleaded that as their account was joint, therefore Kanwal Singh also signed the sale-deed dated 16.8.1955 along with Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh . Plaintiffs also pleaded that Jaikaran Singh never claimed right over the suit property during his lifetime. 6) Defendants filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. They pleaded that no loan was taken by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh from Seth Hiralal and sale deed dated 16.8.1955 was executed by Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh 8 alias Gaya Singh in favor of Seth Hiralal and it was duly signed in presence of witnesses. They further pleaded that agreement dated 9.1.1953 is a forged one and Kanwal Singh had sold his share i.e. 7.65 acres. Defendants took plea of limitation. They further pleaded that suit for permanent injunction without relief of possession is not maintainable. 7) Learned trial Court framed issues; parties led evidence and subsequently the suit was dismissed. Learned trial Court held that the suit deserves to be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff No. 2 – Jagdish Singh alias Gaya Singh died on 5.6.1997 but the remaining plaintiffs failed to substitute his legal representatives and thus, the suit stood abated. Learned trial Court further held that (i) plaintiffs could not establish the fact that Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh had alienated his share through registered sale- deed dated 16.8.1955; (ii) defendants No. 1 to 6 have no right to claim partition ; (iii) suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation; (iv) plaintiff cannot go beyond the recitals of the sale-deed dated 16.8.1955 according to ‘principle of estoppel’. 8) Plaintiffs preferred appeal and the learned appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Learned appellate Court held that though plaintiff No. 2 – Jagdish Singh died on 5.6.1997 and plaintiffs failed to substitute the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No. 2, but according to the provisions of Order 22 Rules 3, 4 and 6 of CPC suit would not 9 abate on account of death of plaintiff No. 2 as the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Learned appellate Court further held that it is not a case where plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 to 6 got a decree in their favor. Learned appellate Court also held that there was partition between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh in the year 1955. The learned appellate Court considered evidence of (i) Jaipal Singh (PW/3) who in para- 1 has stated that in the year 1955, the property was partitioned between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh; (ii) Arjun Das (PW/6) who in para-3 on affidavit stated that land situated Village Pachmedi was in possession of Kanwal Singh; (iii) Thanulal Sahu (PW/7) deposed that land ad-measuring 9.08 acres was in possession of Lal Singh S/o Kanwal Singh. Lal Singh (PW/1); Agarchand Jain (PW/2) and Ramji Deshmukh (PW/4) stated that loan of Rs. 600/- was taken by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh and a written agreement (‘Likhapadhi’) was executed by him vide Ex. P/1. This document would reveal that loan of Rs. 600/- was taken by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh from Seth Hiralal on 9.1.1953 and it was duly signed by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh. In Ex. P/2, it is stated that an agreement was entered into between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh to purchase land in sale consideration of Rs. 1,150/- from one Lal Kuleshwar Singh and this fact is mentioned in Ex. P/2. Learned appellate Court compared the signatures of Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh available on Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/5 and held that both 10 the signatures are almost similar and Jaipal Singh who was examined as PW/3 also proved the signatures of Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh. Learned appellate Court further placed reliance on Ex. P/4, an inland letter which states that there was partition between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh and thus Court recorded a finding that there was partition between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh. In meeting which is evident from Ex. P/8, a decision was taken that the legal representatives of Kanwal Singh would pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to legal representatives of Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh to remove their respective names from the revenue record. Learned appellate Court opined that Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh had already alienated his share and all the plaintiffs except plaintiff No. 2 have right over the suit property; as there was partition between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh in the year 1955 and 9.08 acres of land fell in share of Kanwal Singh. Learned appellate Court also held that as the plaintiffs were in possession of suit property, in absence of relief of possession, suit was maintainable and suit is within limitation as order of partition was passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Khairagarh on 25.2.1988 (Ex. P/6) and suit was filed on 31.6.1989. Learned appellate Court decreed the suit. 9) Mrs. Meera Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that plaintiff No. 2 – Jagdish Singh died on 5.6.1997 11 but legal representatives of Jagdish Singh were not brought on record, therefore learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit holding it stood abated. She further submits that with regard to date of death of Jagdish Singh, an application under Section 151 of CPC was moved by the defendants. She also submits an inquiry was conducted and it was concluded that plaintiff No. 2 Jagdish Singh died on 5.6.1997 and application was not moved by the plaintiffs under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2, rather an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved and further an application was moved to delete the name of plaintiff No. 4. She contends that learned trial Court rightly rejected both the applications holding that on account of non-substitution of legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2, the suit stood abated. She further contends that Kanwal Singh died on 23.7.1967 and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh died on 25.12.1969. After their death, Lal Singh made a false statement before the revenue authority that ‘Jaikaran is issueless’, and on the basis of such statement order of mutation was passed in his favor. She also contends that there was no partition between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh and learned trial Court rightly decided this issue in favor of defendants. Mrs. Ansari would contend that learned appellate Court failed to consider the true intent of written agreement (‘Likhapadhi’) of loan (Ex. P/1), agreement of sale pertaining to land purchased by Jaikaran Singh (Ex. P/2) and registered sale- 12 deed dated 16.8.1955 (Ex. P/5) and recorded a finding that an agreement was entered into by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh to discharge his liability of loan of Rs. 600/- to Seth Hiralal. She argues that Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh was an employee of Tata Steel, therefore there was no need for him to take loan of Rs. 600/-. She has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Council Mandsaur Versus Fakirchand and Another1 wherein it is held that if one of the three brothers had died and no application was moved to substitute his legal representative(s), the suit stood abated as whole. She has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hiralal Versus Gajjan2 wherein it is held that High Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence. 10) On the other hand, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents No. 1(A) to (H), 2(A) to (D), 3, 4, 5(A) to (E) and 6(A) to (H) submits that plaintiffs proved the fact that they have right over the suit land by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence. He would submit that agreement (‘Likhapadhi’) of loan (Ex. P/1) would reveal that an agreement was entered into between Seth Hiralal and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh for loan transaction of Rs. 600/- and Lal Singh (PW/1) has proved this fact. He further submits that Agarchand (PW/2) 1. (1997) 3 SCC 500 2. 1990 1 MPWN 155 13 was a witness to the sale-deed dated 16.8.1955 (Ex. P/5) and he stated that sale-deed was executed on behalf of Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh to satisfy the loan of Rs. 600/- taken from Seth Hiralal. Mr. Tiwari argues that plaintiffs have proved the signatures of Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh available on Exhibits P/1, P/4 and P/5. He contends that Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh purchased total 17.14 acres of land and there was oral partition between them. Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh received 7.65 acres of land whereas Kanwal Singh received 9.08 acres of land. 11) With regard to abatement of suit Mr. Tiwari would contend that when one or more plaintiffs join together and secure a decree of declaration on an immovable property, death of one of the plaintiffs would not make the suit abate and cause of action would survive against the surviving plaintiffs, and abatement occurs only when cause of action does not survive against surviving parties. He also contends that Order 22 Rule 1 of CPC provides that there shall be no abatement by party’s death if right to sue survives. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by High Court of Jharkhand in the matter of Radhu Napit @ Radha Napit Versus Tarpado Napit and Others3. 3. 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 635 14 12) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 13) Firstly I would like to deal with substantial question of law No. 2 which relates to abatement. Learned appellate Court held that suit did not abate due to death of plaintiff No. 2 Jagdish Singh on 5.6.1997. Initially seven plaintiffs filed the suit and out of them, Jagdish (plaintiff No. 2) died on 5.6.1997. The suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction and death of one of the plaintiffs would not affect the right of others to pursue the suit. Order 22 Rule 1 CPC provides that there shall be no abatement on account of death of a party if right to sue survives. Rule 2 provides the procedure in the cases where one of several plaintiffs or defendants dies and right to sue survives. Another situation contemplated in the Code is under Rule 4 which lays down the procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant. The High Court of Jharkhand in the matter of Radha Napit (supra) while dealing with similar issue held that the underlying principle under Order 22 CPC is that if the right to sue survives, the suit shall not abate. 14) In the matter of Fakirchand (supra), an SLP was preferred by the Municipal Corporation, Mandsaur wherein during pendency of appeal, one of the plaintiffs/ respondents died and Municipal Corporation failed to substitute his legal representatives, rather an 15 application was moved to delete his name but the remaining plaintiffs raised objection to the effect that the appeal stood abated as whole because legal representatives of one of the co- owners had not been brought on record and such contention was allowed. In that matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the plaint it was initially stated that property was co-parcenary property which should be represented by ‘karta’. It was pleaded that after death of father, all three brothers became co-owner of the said joint hindu family property, it was not co-parcenary property. The disputed property was undivided property of three joint owners who inherited the same from their father’s interest after his death ; suit was filed for injunction and all of them intend to exercise their right as co-owners of the property. 15) Present is a case where suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Plaintiffs pleaded that there was partition between Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh first in the year 1944-45 and thereafter in year 1955. They pleaded that Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh sold his share through registered sale-deed and plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property whereas defendants are interfering with their possession. According to plaint averments, cause of action arose on 25.2.1988 when order of partition was passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Khairagarh whereas plaintiffs were in possession of the property, 16 thus facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of Fakirchand (supra). 16) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by High Court of Jharkhand in the matter of Radha Napit (supra), learned appellate Court rightly held that the suit would not abate on account of death of one of the plaintiffs (plaintiff No. 2 in this case). Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered against the defendants. 17) Now, coming to the first substantial question of law. Written agreement (‘Likhapadhi’) of loan (Ex. P/1) was executed between Seth Hiralal and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh on 9.1.1953. This document states that loan of Rs. 600/- to purchase the land was taken by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh. Agreement to sale (P/2) was executed between Lal Kuleshwar Singh and Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh on 9.1.1953 to purchase land bearing Khasra Nos. 1647, 1664,1686, 1521, 1524/2 in sale consideration of Rs. 1,150/-. Sale-deed dated 4.2.1954 (Ex.P/3) was executed by Lal Kuleshwar Singh in favor of Kanwal Singh and Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh. Exhibit P/4 is an inland letter wherein it was admitted by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh that properties were partitioned between two brothers. Sale-deed dated 16.8.1955 (Ex. P/5) was executed by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh and Kanwal Singh in favor of Seth Hiralal. Agarchand Jain and Nimsha Kumar were witnesses. 17 Agarchand Jain has been examined as PW/2, who proved execution of sale-deed. He further stated that sale-deed was actually executed by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh to repay the loan. Jaipal Singh (PW/3) who was acquainted with the signatures of Jaikaran Singh has categorically stated that documents Ex. P/1, P/2 and P/4 contain signatures of Jaikaran Singh. Learned appellate Court after comparing the signatures held that those documents were signed by Jaikaran Singh alias Gaya Singh, thus learned appellate Court rightly reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to plaintiffs’ right over suit property and decreed the suit. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is also answered against the defendants. 18) In result, this second appeal stands dismissed. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.16 14:31:49 +0530