Hon’ble Jaspreet Singh, J.—The present second appeal assails the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1991 passed by Shri R.P. Rai, IV Additional District Judge, Sitapur, whereby he allowed the plaintiff-respondent’s appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.5.1989 passed by V Additional Munsif, Sitapur, who dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for possession.

2. The above appeal was admitted vide order dated 2.4.1992, however, at the time of admission, no substantial question of law was formulated. Now at the time of hearing of the above appeal, the Court formulated the following substantial questions of law :

(a) Whether the alleged sale-deed executed by Angney in the year 1970 though unregistered could be used for collateral purposes to prove title by the plaintiff-appellant ?

(b) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court dated 18.4.1991 is unsustainable for non-compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC ?

3. Briefly the facts relevant for deciding the above second appeal are being mentioned as under.

4. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant from the disputed Ahata situated at Gram Barchanpur, Pargana Machchrehta, Tehsil Misrikh, District Sitapur. It was the case of the plaintiff-respondent that he purchased the disputed land from one Angney son of Makhan by means of a deed dated 28.7.1970 for consideration of Rs. 90/- who delivered the possession to the plaintiff over the same. It was also stated that the plaintiff constructed two rooms and a “Chhapar” on the disputed land and was using the same to put cattle pegs. Since, the defendant who had dispute with his father was turned out of his house and he required accommodation. Thus, he was given accommodation on the disputed Kothari and the defendant had to vacate the same within one month. However, he failed to do so and this led to the dispute and filing of the suit bearing R.S. No. 484 of 1987.

5. The defendant-appellant contested the suit on the allegation that he acquired the land on 12.1.1987 through an auction sale held by the Gaon Sabha. He after purchase of the land constructed three rooms and planted a neem tree and thus he being the owner thereof, the plaintiff had no right over the same and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff was based on false allegations.

6. The trial Court upon consideration of the entire evidence by means of its judgment and decree dated 15.5.1989 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff recording a finding that the plaintiff was unable to establish its title over the property in question, and was not entitled to the possession/ejectment of the defendant from the disputed Ahata.

7. The plaintiff preferred a regular civil appeal bearing No. 90 of 1989 before the District Judge, Sitapur under Section 96 CPC, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 18.4.1991. While allowing the appeal with costs, the lower appellate Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that he was entitled to get the possession of the same through the Court. It is this judgment of reversal, which has been assailed before this Court under Section 100 CPC.

8. As indicated above, at the time of admission, the substantial questions of law were not formulated. However, since the appeal before this Court relates to the year 1991, thus, at the time of hearing, this Court formulated the substantial questions of law as mentioned above. It is also relevant to mention here that the second substantial question of law formulated by this Court relating to the non-compliance of the Order XLI Rule 31 CPC was not incorporated or taken in the memo of appeal by the appellant but at the time of hearing, the same was pressed by learned counsel for the appellant Shri Awadhesh Kumar. Accordingly, in terms of Section 100, sub-section (4) CPC, the above question was also formulated.

9. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, it was argued by Shri Awdhesh Kumar, learned counsel for th