- (1.)THIS is plaintiff's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of reversal. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that each of the plaintiffs are entitled fori 3 acres of land under the provisions of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act and the order passed by the Competent Authority under the said Act on 30.10.1976 is null and void. Civil Judge, Class II, Harda by judgment and decree dated 20.10.1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 13-A/1977 decreed the suit and held that the order of Competent Authority dated 30.10.1976 is illegal and inoperative. Defendants 1 and 2 aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the Additional District Judge Harda by judgment and decree dated 20.7.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/1984 allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the same, have preferred this appeal. By order dated 31.3.1989 appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :
''Whether the lower appellate Court was correct in holding that the daughters were not entitled to any share in the suit property for the reasons assigned by it ?"

(2.)ADMITTED facts of the case are that plaintiff No. 1 Kamlabai and Plaintiff No. 2 Arun Kumar are Bhumiswamis of the land of Plot Nos. 114, having an area of 43.99 acres, plotNo. 150 having an area of 1.01 acres, plot No. 131 having an area of 15.50 acres and plot No. 68 having an area of 11.61 acres and the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2, namely Jugal Kishore is dead. It is further an admitted position that the disputed land has been declared to be surplus by the competent authority in the ceiling proceeding by order dated 30.10.1976.
According to the plaintiffs, suit land was accorded in the name of Jugal Kishore and after his demise, plaintiffs became the owners thereof. It is the stand of the plaintiff that after the death of Jugal Kishore, they did not continue to be the members of the same family and accordingly in the ceiling proceeding, they filed separate statements, but the competent authority considering them to be the members of the same family, declared 18 acres of land of each of the plaintiffs, surplus. According to the plaintiffs, out of the disputed land, mango orchard existed over 10 acres of land which is not suitable for agricultural purpose, but the said objection was also overruled by the competent authority. It is the further stand of the plaintiff that Jugal Kishore's two daughters namely Prabhabai and Shantibai i.e., defendants 3 and 4 are also entitled to have share in the suit property being daughters of Jugal Kishore.

(3.)STAND of the defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement is that the disputed land has been recorded jointly in the name of plaintiffs and as the plaintiff No. 2 Arun Kumar was minor during the relevant time, both cannot be considered to be the members of separate family. It has been pleaded by the aforesaid defendants that the daughters of Jugal Kishore, i.e., defendants 3 and 4 have no share in the disputed property.