(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties finally in this appeal.

(3) A limited notice was issued on 26-8-1997 to the following effect:

"ISSUE notice for showing cause why the second appeal should not be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration as prima facie it appears that the findings recorded by the High Court are contrary to the record and the findings reached by the first appellate court. Even otherwise, the procedure as laid down by this Court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait has not been followed. The notice must state that the proceedings will be disposed of at the notice stage itself."

(4) A mere look at the impugned order of the High Court shows that no substantial question of law was framed though we find from the record that earlier learned Judge had already framed two substantial questions of law in the second appeal on 28-9-1989 as under:

"1. Whether the appellants are entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? 2. Whether the appellate court misinterpreted Ext. 11 on the face of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act?"

(5)