(6) The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi raised mainly 3 substantial questions of law. Firstly, the learned counsel submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has misread the Exhibit 4 and Exhibit ‘C’ because there is conflict in both the documents regarding the name of daughter of Ramavtar. According to the plaintiff, in Exhibit 4, Sunari has been mentioned whereas in Exhibit ‘C’, Gujari has been mentioned. The plaintiff’s case is that Sunari was the wife of Ramavtar. This fact was not disputed by the defendant and, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court could not have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit relying on the Exhibit ‘C’. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that while reversing the finding that the trial court recording the death of Ramavtar in the year 1950 or before 1956, the Lower Appellate Court has not met the reasonings assigned by the trial court and in one line, the evidence of the defendants have been considered. Thirdly, the learned counsel submitted that in fact, it was the onus on the defendant to prove the fact that Reshmi was the daughter of Ramavtar but the Lower Appellate Court wrongly placed the onus on the plaintiff-appellant. In such circumstances, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated.
