ANAND PATHAK,J. - (1.)Heard on the question of admission.
(2.)This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 03-07-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karera District Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No.19-A/2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-05- 2012 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class -II, Karera District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.40-A/2011.
(3.)Appellants have challenged the concurrent findings of fact before this Court. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit, it was averred by the plaintiffs that the original owner of the suit property was Balua and since Balua was issueless, therefore, according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') after his death, the suit property came into the account of sister of Balua, namely, Muliya being class -II heir. This property came into the account of Muliya after her death, therefore, the said property was distributed between the son and daughter of Muliya. Plaintiffs further averred that the property was orally partitioned between the son and daughter of Muliya, sister of the original owner Balua. Further, it was alleged that the defendants, in order to grab the property, prepared a forged Will and on the basis of said document, mutated their name in the revenue record. However, the said mutation is still under challenge in the revenue Court but since the defendants have threatened the plaintiffs with regard to dispossessing them from the suit property, therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court.