IMPORTANT POINT
Misreading and misinterpreting a document of title read with other documents and the plan for the identification of the suit lands whereupon the plaintiffs themselves relied upon, gives rise to a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J : —

1.Leave granted.

2.Plaintiffs in the suit are Appellants before us. They filed a suit which was marked as OS No.1132 of 1974; in all 10 reliefs were prayed for. We are concerned herein with reliefs no.8 and 9. Relief no.8 was in respect of a land admeasuring 15-1/2 ft. x 21 ft. whereas relief no.9 was in respect of a land admeasuring 40 ft. × 20 ft. The said lands were allegedly purchased by the predecessor in interest of the appellants by a deed of sale dated 16.9.1935. In the said deed of sale the properties in question have been described as under :

“In Tiruchirappalli District, Srirangam Sub District, Tiruchirappalli Taluk, Thimmarayasamudhram Village, Srirangam Municipal Second Ward, Ayan Punja, in T.S. No.1960/1, out of 24 cents the 8 cents on the western side, Ayan Punja in T.S. No.1960/4 out of 6 cents, 3 cents on western side, within this a thatched house vacant site including the brick wall, door on the east to west side etc. along with common pathway rights in the above T.S. Nos. belongs to the property for 8 cents set out about four boundaries are as follows:

NORTH of Velayutham Pillai land ;

SOUTH of Rajarethinam Pillai land ;

WEST of Pitchaikara Pillai land; and

EAST of Municipal lane.”

3.This suit was decreed only in relation to reliefs no.6, 8 and 9. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellants. A cross-objection was also preferred by the respondents. Both the appeal and the cross objection were dismissed by the First Appellate Court. A Second Appeal was preferred their against by the appellants in the High Court of Madras which was marked as SA No.1674 of 1982. Some of the respondents also preferred cross objections. The High Court by reason of a judgment and decree dated 16.9.998 while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants herein allowed the cross-objections of the respondents in respect of the reliefs no.8 and 9. In a special leave petition filed by the appellants before this Court it was argued that even the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 100 of CPC would be attracted to in relation to the cross objections. The said contention was accepted by this Court and the matter was remitted to the High Court for framing an appropriate substantial questions of law. The questions of law formulated by the High Court are as under :

“(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in law in ignoring the documentary evidence relating to description of the suit item Nos.8 and 9 and misreading the evidence of D.W.2 to come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the reliefs, the subject matter of Cross Objection?

(2)Whether the lower appellate Court’s conclusions are initiated by non-consideration of the Evidence on record more particularly the description of property in Exs.A1, A2, A3, A17, A18 and A21?”

4.By reason of the impugned judgment the said Cross Objection of the respondents herein was allowed.

5.Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties herein it may be noticed that in the earlier round of litigation before this Court it was pointed out that one of the respondents therein M. Marimuthu Ammal had expired way back on 1.12.1993 and thus the Second Appeal itself had abated; the cross objection also did not survive. However, the legal representatives of the said Shri Ammal were brought on record before this Court who are parties before us.

6.Mr. S. Balakrishnan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, would submit that the purported questions formulated by the High Court do not constitute ‘substantial question of law’. Our attention in this regard has been drawn to the judgments of the courts’ below to contend that all the relevant documents and in particular, Exs.A1, A2, A3, A17, A18 and A21 received elaborate consideration by them and thus only because there existed a dispute in regard to the description of the property in a document, the same by itself would not give rise to a sub