BALRAM Vs. DHEGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been admitted by formulating the following substantial questions of law for determination which state as under:

(2.) Following genealogical tree will demonstrate the relationship among the parties: - Gokul

(3.) Gokul had four sons namely Ghasi, Mulku, Shivratan and Bhaira. The dispute relates to the property left by Ghasi who died issue-less. The plaintiffs are sons of Lavango - daughter of Mulku and defendants No.1 to 4 are grandsons of Bhaira. Defendant No.5 is widow of Mangru and defendants No.6 & 7 are sons of Shivratan. The original plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and possession stating inter alia that after the death of Ghasi, they are also entitled for share in the property left by Ghasi being grandsons of Mulku, as Mulku died in the year 1963. As such, decree for partition be passed which was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement and they have also taken the plea of adverse possession that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit property and are entitled for possession and the suit is held to be within limitation repelling the plea of adverse possession. In first appeal preferred by the defendants, the first appellate Court agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the first appeal against which this second appeal has been preferred in which the substantial questions of law have been formulated and which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.