(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. This Court vide order dated 23-4-1996 while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law:--
(2.) The defendant No. 1 filed the written statement in which inter-alia it was pleaded that suit lands are ancestral lands and were not subjected to partition. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 also has share in the suit lands and is in joint cultivating possession with the plaintiffs. Therefore, he is entitled to share in Ganpat's share in the lands in question. The defendants No. 3 to 5 were proceeded ex parte by the trial Court.
(3.) The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11-7-1990 while taking into account the admission made by defendant No. 1 namely Karan Singh (DW-1) in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his statement held that during the lifetime of Bhagirath, the partition had taken place and the parties were in separate cultivating possession of the lands in question. It was further held that plaintiffs were in joint cultivating possession with late Ganpat. The trial Court in view of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 held that share of Ganpat would devolve on the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.