Procedural compliance is essential in determining legal representation before proceeding with appeals, especially when disputes arise over the validity of claims.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellants and Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (here-in-after referred as CPC ) has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No.4/2001; Smt. Gaya Dei Vs. Ram Kripal and Others by 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, by means of which the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the court below i.e. the trial court has been set aside and the sale deed in question has been cancelled with a direction to the trial court to communicate the cancellation of sale deed to the concerned Sub-Registrar.

3. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the judgement and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court stands vitiated for non compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Order XXXXI, Rule 31 C.P.C.

2. Whether even after the clear admissions made by Smt. Gaya Dei that she has not filed any suit for cancellation and she being totally ignorant about the case, the lower Appellate Court could allow the appeal and decree the plaintiffs' suit.

3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court could reverse the findings recorded by the trial court without considering the reasons adopted by the trial court and the evidence relied upon by the trial court.

4. Whether during pendency of the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, in the matter of substitution consequent on the death of Smt. Gaya Dei, alleged Will set up by the respondents Jagjeevan, being disputed, the Lower Appellate Court could substitute the Jagjeevan without entering into evidence and without the Will having been proved."

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants submitted that the suit for cancellation of sale deed by Gaya Dei in favour of Pudda was filed with general allegations in the plaint, which were denied in the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant nos.1 to 3. The trial court, after considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record and recording the finding that the execution and thumb impression on the sale deed has been admitted by the Gaya Dei and no allegation has been levelled against the transferee and no evidence of any benefit to her confident Ram Lakhan Singh has been adduced, rightly dismissed the suit. He further submitted that the lower appellate court has allowed the civil appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent without following the provisions of Order-41, Rule-31 CPC . He further submitted that the lower appellate court, without considering that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent Gaya Dei had executed two sale deeds including the sale deed in question and contested a case of mutation with Smt. Maha Dei and the murder case, therefore, it can not be said that she was not aware with the worldly affairs and entitled for any benefit of Pardanashin lady, held that the thumb impression had been obtained on sale deed in her ignorance and misleading her. The lower appellate court also failed to consider that the plaintiff Gaya Dei admitted in her evidence that she has not filed any suit for cancellation of sale deed and she does not know about the suit and she has come to court twice only. Thus, admittedly, the suit was not filed by her but was got filed by some other person. He further submitted that the financial condition and capability to purchase the land in dispute by Pudda has not been questioned but the lower appellate court considered the same and also considering the evidence of other witnesses recorded findings on the basis of presumption without any basis and failed to consider the cross- examination of PW-1 Gaya Dei, in which she admitted two sale deeds and sale deed about eleven years back, thus, the sale deed of appellant has been admittedly executed by h