BAGAR MAL Vs. DHANNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was admitted on the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) The suit property was originally held by one Rampratap. Bagarmal - plaintiff No.1 and Fatko Bai - plaintiff No.2 claiming themselves to be son and wife of late Rampratap filed suit for declaration of tile and permanent injunction stating inter alia that the defendants being sons and daughters of second wife of Rampratap namely, Sukhdaiya are interfering with their possession and therefore injunction be granted after declaring their title over the suit land which the defendants disputed by filing written statement and pleading that the plaintiffs are not son and wife of Rampratap, whereas, the defendants being sons and daughters of Rampratap out of his wedlock with Sukhdaiya, the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree as claimed.

(3.) The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiffs are son and wife of Rampratap relying upon Exs.P-7 to P-11 which the first appellate Court reversed holding that the plaintiffs are not son and wife of Rampratap and further held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree and allowed the appeal against which this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the CPC in which substantial question of law has been framed which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.