JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1, Kamrup in TA 56/2002 upholding the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2002 passed in TS 93/1991 decreeing the suit. This court admitted the second appeal under its order dated 16.01.2009 by framing the following substantial question of law.

“1. Whether the learned lower courts below illegally came to a conclusion without framing and deciding the essential/ important issue as to whether the suit property is a joint paternal property?

2. Whether the lower courts below committed illegality in confirming the sale of the suit land to the plaintiff misconstruing and misreading the sale deeds i.e. Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 21 and the records of right i.e. Exhibit-16.”

3. Subsequently, two additional substantial questions of law were formulated by this court under its order dated 23.03.2023, which reads as follows:

“1. Whether the oral evidence of PW1 regarding the auction sale in favour of Gobinda Mahajan is inadmissible i