ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By this judgment, RSA Nos.365 and 496 of 2009 shall stand disposed of, as both these appeals are arising from one suit and two first appeals disposed of by the learned first appellate court by a common judgment. One appeal has been filed by defendant No.1 through her legal heirs and second appeal has been filed by Sultan-defendant No.3.

2. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise for determination:-

(i) Whether documentary evidence is required to be preferred in comparison to the oral evidence while deciding the litigation between the parties? RSA No.496 of 2009 (O&M) and another 2

(ii) Whether a defendant is required to file counter claim before he can be declared owner of the share which comes to him as per the provisions of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

(iii) Whether a judgment passed by the first appellate court without analysing/discussing the report submitted by the learned trial court which was called by the first appellate court on additional issues having been framed, can be sustained?

(iv) Wheth