(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the decision of the learned District Judge, jullundur, affirming on appeal the decision of the trial Court holding that the sister's daughters were not entitled to the non-ancestral property of Dalipa, the last male-holder.
(2.) IT is not necessary to state all the facts giving rise to this litigation because they are all referred to in the judgment inter parties in L. P. A. No. 84 of 1955, decided by G. D. Khosla, C. J. and me on 22nd August, 1960. We remanded the case after settling the principal controversy in the suit. The remand was confined to the decision of the following two issues:--"1. Are the defendants sister's daughters of Dalipa ? 2. If so, are they entitled to succeed to the non-ancestral property left by Dalipa in preference to the plaintiffs?
(3.) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants are the sister's daughters of Dalipa. This conclusion has been affirmed by the learned District judge on appeal. The question, whether the defendants are the sister's daughters of Dalipa, is a question of fact and a concurrent decision of the Courts below on this matter, which is based on evidence, is binding on me in second appeal. In fact, no serious attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondents to agitate this matter in second appeal.