This is plaintiff’s appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. Respondents are the defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant/plaintiff died. Her legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 6 by an order dated 25.04.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 died and respondent Nos.2 to 5, who are already on record, were shown as her legal representatives.

Respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6/defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6 also died. Their legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.7 to 10, 11 to 13 and 14 and 15 respectively by an order dated 09.07.2013 in S.A.M.P.No.1908 of 2008. 2. On 20.10.2000 a learned Judge of this Court admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the non-reading of the documents Exs.B.3 to B.6 and the plaint schedule by the appellate Court which disclose that Exs.B.3 to B.6 do not relate to the suit schedule property is a grave error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether under law, Exs.B.1 and B.2 are inadmissible evidence for the non-examination of the alleged photographer? 3. Whether Exs.B.3 to B.5 certificates are inadmissible