JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. S. Kemprai, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Gautam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.1, who is the husband of the respondent No.2, had expired. He further submitted that the respondent No.2, being a legal representative of the respondent No.1, the estate of the respondent No.1 is well represented and as such there is no requirement for further substitution. Taking into account the said submission and as such admittedly the respondent No.2 is the wife of the respondent No.1 and the estate of the respondent No.1 also devolves upon the respondent No.2, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity for further substitution of the respondent No.1 pursuant to his death as his estate is duly represented by the respondent No.2.

3. This Court vide an order dated 26.07.2006 formulated three substantial questions of law while admitting the appeal, which for the sake of convenience, are reproduced herein under:

“1. Whether the counter claim of the defendants can be entertained in the Title Suit p