After the death of Harbilas, his sisters sons having failed before the Revenue Courts in their claim for succession, filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal, inter alia, seeking a declaration as owners of the land left behind by Harbilas and for restoration of possession thereof from the defendants being descendants of great grand father of Harbilas.
The suit for declaration and restoration of possession has been decreed by the trial companyrt.
All the defendants in the suit, as stated above, belong to several branches of descendants of great grand father of Harbilas.
The companytroversy relates to interpretation of clause 9 of Section 253 of the Special Legislation read with Appendix 3 appended thereto.
The judgment and decree of the trial companyrt has been affirmed in the first appeal as also by the High Court in the second appeal.
Harbilas died in the year 1948.
At the time of death of Harbilas, his sister Kokila was alive.
Kokila died after the death of Harbilas.
Mohan was, thus, great grand father of Harbilas as also of appellants.
The appellants fall in the category of descendants of great grand father of Harbilas.
Murli was father of Hansraj and Mohan was father of Murli.
The other defendants in the suit also belong to different branches of great grand father, Mohan.
Harbilas was son of Bhagwant.
Murli and Ghanshyam were brothers, both being sons of Mohan.
Ghanshyam was father of Bhagwant.
The plaintiffs in the suit, namely, Pooja Ram and Mani Ram are sons of Kokila.
Who out of the aforesaid two categories have the right of succession to his land, is the question?
The respondents are Harbilass sisters sons.
Under these circumstances, the defendants in the suit are in appeal before us.
Appellants are sons of Hansraj.
The subject matter of appeal is land in question left behind by one Harbilas.
On factual matrix, there is numberdispute between the parties.
