THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No. 930 of 1998. JUDGEMENT: This second appeal is by the plaintiffs whose suit O.S.No. 361 of 1984 on the file of the I Addl. District Munsif, Chittoor seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential injunction was dismissed by the trial court and the same was confirmed by the appellate court in A.S.No. 65 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this court while admitting the second appeal on 2.11.1998. i) Whether the lower Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the non-examination of Jayamma is fatal and dismissing the suit on that count alone inasmuch as there is no obligation to prove any question of fact when it is admitted in evidence and the presumption available under Section 58 to 60 are in favour of plaintiffs in such a case. ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court ought to have seen that Ex:X.1 and Ex.X.2 are registered settlement deeds and in the absence of proof to the contrary the legal presumption is in favour of the execution of the document and as such the whether lower Appellate Court committed a legal error in dismissing the appeal. iii) Whether the lower Appellate Court ought to have seen that the court is bound to dispose of the appeal on all the issues framed by the trial court and whether the lower Appellate Court has committed an error in not giving findings on all the issues by observing that since Jayamma the mother of Pw.2 Dr.Rajasekar Naidu and the daughter of Munemma from whom she got the property under Ex:A.3 (Ex:X.1) and delivered possession of the same to Pw.2 under Ex:A.2 (X.2) is a material witness and her non-examination is fatal and therefore there is no need to discuss the other points, which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and as a consequence thereof whether the plaintiffs right of getting an adjudication on all issues, either of law or of facts has been lost. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. Sri.P.Govind Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the lower Appellate Court had committed an error in not answering all the points for consideration as contemplated under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and that when the predecessor of the plaintiffs namely Jayamma had executed a registered document, her non-examination does not ipso facto invalidate the title documents of the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel pointed out that the original owner Narayana Swamy Naidu had four sons and in the partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of 2nd son Chinna Swamy Naidu and he was succeeded by his wife Munemma and four daughters. Under Ex:A.3, Munemma executed a registered settlement deed in favour of Jayamma, the 4th daughter. The said Jayamma in turn executed another settlement deed Ex:A.2 equivalent to Ex:X.2 dt. 24.3.1972 in favour of her son Dr. Rajasekhar Naidu who was examined as Pw.2. The said Dr. Rajasekhar Naidu (Pw.2) in turn sold the property under a registered sale deed dt. 9.2.1981 Ex:A.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel states that by examining Pw.2, the vendor of the plaintiffs, the title documents are duly proved and there is no reason to deny the relief of declaration of title to the plaintiffs. The aforesaid contention when examined in the light of the substantial questions of law formulated and the findings recorded by both the courts below, it would be clear that the defendants in their written statement had specifically disputed the right of Munemma i.e. the wife of Chinna Swamy Naidu to execute a registered settlement deed in favour of her 4th daughter Jayamma to the exclusion of other three daughters and also in view of the fact that Munemma had only life interest in the property. The defendants alleged and the courts below have also accepted that it was for Jayamma, the beneficiary under Ex:A.3 equivalent to Ex:X.1 failed to explain as to how she acquired absolute title to the suit schedule property under the aforesaid document dt. 22.11.1942. Jayamma, the beneficiary being alive was not examined by the plaintiffs in spite of objections raised by the defendants and a serious doubt was expressed against her title. It was further obligatory for the plaintiffs to have established the genuineness and validity of the said settlement deed dt. 22.11.1942 marked as Ex:A.1 equivalent to Ex:X.1. The failure of the plaintiffs to prove the aforesaid document was rightly considered by both the courts below as a failure on the part of the plaintiffs to establish and prove their title. The subsequent registered documents namely Ex:A.1 or Ex:A.2 under which the plaintiffs and their vendor acquired title through Jayamma, even if accepted as proved, would no way establish the title of Jayamma the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. Both the courts below have therefore recorded categorical findings that if the mother of Jayamma i.e. Munemma was not having absolute title and had only life interest, she could not have conveyed better title to Jayamma. These aspects, though raised by the defendants in their written statement, were not proved by the plaintiffs and consequently the relief of declaration was rightly denied. The non- examination of Jayamma was therefore held factal to the relief of injunction sought for by the plaintiffs and I do not find any infirmity in the said finding. The substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 extracted above therefore require to be answered against the appellants. So far as the substantial question of law No.3 is concerned, the lower Appellate Court has explained that once the 1st point covered by the question Nos. 1 and 2 is answered against the plaintiffs, the other question do not fall for consideration. I therefore does not find any infirmity or perversity in the Judgements impugned. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 22.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No. 930 of 1998. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 22.3.2011.