ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law:

“1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error of law in holding that the finding of the Trial Court about exclusive ownership of the plaintiff regarding the suit wall was conclusive as no appeal or Cross-Objections were filed by the defendants? (Order 41, Rule 33 of the C.P.C.)

2) Whether the registered mortgage deed Exh.44, dated 1-6-1935 executed by Ravishanker Ranchhodbhai and others in favour of Babalbhai Pitambardas, and registered sale deed in respect of the same property executed by Ravishanker Ranchhoddas and others on 3-8-1944, containing a recital about the eastern wall of the defendants being a joint wall, were not relevant evidence, regarding the character of the suit wall and whether they were liable to be discarded as independent pieces of evidence and whether the ratio laid down in the Division Bench judgement in Vaidy Trambaklal Parshotam V/s. Madhavji Premji in 14 G.L.R. 194 was not applicable to the present case?

3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error of law in not taking into account the observations made by the Tri