ORAL ORDER

1. Present Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 delivered by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Borsad in Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 2016 and confirmed by judgment and decree dated 27.02.2024 delivered in Regular Civil Appeal No.67 of 2023 by the learned Additional District Judge, Anand, whereby, suit of the plaintiff was allowed to the extent that defendant of the suit was directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/- to the plaintiff with 6%

interest p.a. from the date of receipt till realization.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. The respondent herein - original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 2016 before the learned Trial Court. Plaintiff and defendant are real brothers. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant who happened to be real brother of the plaintiff has not paid the part payment with respect to share of the plaintiff in ancestor land after family partition amongst them. The defendant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- and for remaining Rs.2,25,000/-, he has given promissory note to the plaintiff and on demand, same was denied by the defendant and therefore, suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction against the defendant. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2019, partly allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, whereby, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with 6% simple interest from defendant from the date of initiation of the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein - original defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.67 of 2023. Learned Appellate Court vide order dated 27.02.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, present Second Appeal is preferred by the original defendant.

3. In order to admit this appeal, learned advocate Mr.Dhaval Vakil for the appellant - defendant after referring to question of law stated in the appeal memo would submit that learned Trial Court has seriously erred in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff without considering relinquish deed on record and its evidentory value. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has seriously erred in believing promissory note, although it is not proved in accordance with provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is further submitted that learned Trial Court failed to consider that plaintiff did not take responsibility to take care of his father but the defendant who is real brother took care of his father and as such defendant was not required to pay any amount after relinquish deed was executed. It is further submitted that both the Courts below failed to understand that in which perspective, the plaintiff has filed suit against his real brother.

3.1. Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr.Vakil for the appellant submits to admit this appeal on following substantial question of law :

"(A) Whether the Trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and decree partly in favour of the plaintiff ?

(B) Whether the judgment of lower appellant court is erroneous in confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court?

(C) Whether the Trial Court has erred in law in not considering the case of defendant regarding plaintiff's voluntarily relinquishing right from the family property?

(D) Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error of confirming the view of the trial Court regarding the same?

(E) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error of facts in believing the 'promissory note' and the lower appellate court by confirming the same ?

(F) Whether the Trial Court has committed an error of law and facts in decreeing with registered documentary evidence at Exh.34 in favour of the dependent in and same is confirmed by Appellate Court?

(G) Whether trial court is justified while answering the issue no.6 in negative ? and (H) Whether lower appellate court has committed an er