(1.) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants under Section 100 of the CPC against the impugned judgment and decree by which learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
(2.) Mr. Y.C. Sharma and Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in holding that plaintiffs, being the sons and daughter of late Geetabai and grandchildren of late Shivram, are jointly entitled for 1/7th share in the suit property by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record, as Shivram had already given Geetabai's share to her which she relinquished in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the second appeal deserves to be admitted by formulating substantial question of law.
(3.) The suit property was originally held by Buddhuram. He had only one son namely Shivram who died leaving behind two sons i.e. defendants No. 1 and 4; and four daughters i.e. defendants No. 2, 3, 5 and one Geetabai who had already died. Defendant No. 6 is the widow of late Shivram.