RAJNESH KUMAR SOOD Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. When the factum of exchange of title to the land is neither evidenced by any legal document nor entries in the revenue record are shown to be lawfully substituted, could the factum of exchange having taken place be assumed merely on the basis of the entries incorporated during settlement. Could the principle that the entries in the revenue record have presumption of truth wrongly applied when such entries were not shown to be lawfully substituted either on the basis of lawful order or having any other lawful basis?

(2.) WHETHER the entries appearing in the revenue record showing the possession on account of Davedhar Tabadla - be held to mean that any exchange between the parties has taken place in lawful manner: Are not entries in the revenue record particularly Exhibits P -8 and P -10 misread and misappropriated to hold that there was a valid exchange of title between the parties to the suit?

(3.) WHETHER one of the party to the suit who has allegedly made admission in the previous proceedings, could bind all the other parties to the suit who are not party to the previous proceedings, were not the courts below competent to take into consideration such facts as well as explanation of the maker of the admissions to hold that such admissions are not binding?