Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R.K.Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.N.Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Following two substantial questions of law have been raised before this Court for adjudication:

“(1) the document dated 13.7.1970 which was unregistered was discarded for the purpose of the defence of the defendant appellants, could have been read against the defendant for the purpose of decreeing the suit when the said document was not accepted by both the Courts below to have proved the case of either of the parties.

(2) Whether the trial Court as well as the appellate Court were justified in proceeding to decree the suit on the basis of the weakness of the defence when the appreciation of the oral evidence according to the Courts below indicated contradictory evidence.”

3. Original suit No. 383 of 1972 instituted by Lachhaman seeking declaration that he is the sole owner of house in question described at the bottom of plaint and defendants have no right or concern with the same. He also sought injunction restraining defendants from interfering in peaceful possession, enjoyment etc. of p