(1.) This second appeal was admitted on 9.4.2003, on the following substantial auestion of law:
(2.) In short the facts can be stated thus. The Plaintiffs Appellants had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in alternative for joint possession of land measuring 22 Kanals 16 marlas initially comprising of following two parcels of land:
(3.) In the suit Plaintiffs-appellants (sons of Bhonthoo deceased) pleaded that their father said Shri Bhonthoo died on 13.2.1974 and the land falling in part (a) above was succeeded by them and Defendants-respondents No. 1 and 2 as tenants as per the provisions of Section 45 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") whereas land in part (b) above was inherited by the Plaintiffs-appellants and Defendants-respondents No. 1 to 5 in equal shares being the class one heirs of deceased Bhonthoo but the Defendant-respondent Gurbax wrongly got its mutations No. 175 and 230 attested in his favour on the basis of alleged Will which was never executed by Bhonthoo, thus the subsequent entries being wrong and illegal, hence sought declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain Defendant No. 1 Gurbax aforesaid from alienating the land or oust them from the suit land, in the alternative prayed for joint possession.