(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, dated 12th July, 1972, by which the judgment and decree of the trial Court have been affirmed.
(2.) Detailed facts have been given in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and it would be unnecessary to recapitulate the same.
(3.) The only point urged before me by Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the document Exhibit P.5/A has been misread, inasmuch as the same is not a document of partition, but has evidenced a past transaction between the parties.