Supreme Court overturns High Court decision, rules forged document invalid, awards costs to appellant.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment and restoring the lower appellate court's decision. The Court found the 'Yadast' agreement produced by the respondent to be invalid, being a forged document presented after a significant delay. It emphasized that the High Court's interference lacked legal basis, as it involved a misinterpretation of evidence rather than substantial questions of law. The appellant, who acquired the property through a registered sale deed, was awarded costs of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the 'Yadast' agreement produced by the respondent.
2. Interpretation of the sale deed and rent agreement in relation to the 'Yadast' agreement.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with findings of fact.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over a property where the respondent claimed a right to the property based on a 'Yadast' agreement allegedly executed by the appellant's mother. The 'Yadast' agreement was produced for the first time during the suit and was not registered, stamped, or attested. The trial court decreed the suit based on this agreement, but the appellate court found it to be a forged document, invalid for lack of authenticity and timing of production after 23 years. The High Court, in a second appeal, interfered with the lower court's findings, leading to the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The appellant's acquisition of the property through a registered sale deed was a crucial point. The lower appellate court held that the mother of the appellant, who allegedly executed the 'Yadast' agreement, had no right to convey the property, as she was not a party to the sale deed. The court also noted that the respondent was not a party to the sale deed but a tenant under a separate rent agreement. The High Court, however, speculated on a connection between the 'Yadast' agreement and the sale deed, which was not supported by evidence or legal basis.

3. The Supreme Court analyzed the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with findings of fact. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was referenced, emphasizing that the High Court's interference is limited to substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's intervention was not justified as it did not involve any substantial question of law but rather a misinterpretation of evidence and facts. The Court reinstated the lower appellate court's judgment, rejecting the High Court's interference.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the lower appellate court's decision. The Court emphasized that the High Court's interference lacked legal basis and was based on misinterpretation rather than substantial questions of law. The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal.

---