Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) By means of the instant revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C., the revisionists have challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur in Regular Suit No.533 of 2007 and the judgment and order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, District Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.59 of 2008, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur partly decreed the suit and partly dismissed the same while the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party No.3 filed a suit for declaration with the allegations that his father is defendant No.1 in the original suit while his mother had died on 24.07.2003. The first wife of the defendant No.1, namely Smt. Ranno Devi died in the year 1958 and Smt. Shishubala lived with the defendant No.1 as his wife till her death. The plaintiff respondent No.3 is the only legal heir left by her mother but the defendant No.2 is not accepting him as the legal heir of Smt. Shishubala. In these circumstances, it has become necessary to seek declaration decree to the effect that he is the only legal heir left by late Smt. Shishubala.
(3.) The revisionists defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement admitting the death of Smt. Shishubala on 24.07.2003 and also admitting that first wife of the defendant No.1 died in the year 1958. It was also stated that Smt. Shishubala had also left a married daughter, namely, Urmila Devi. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent No.3 is not the only heir left by Smt. Shishubala.;