Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) FOR a better appreciation of the dispute, Short pedigree table to connect the parties may be recited. Two brothers Mihan Singh and Ram Singh owned half share each in land measuring 75 Bighas and 19 Biswas Mihan Singh was previously married to Mst. Punjab Kaur and out of this Wedlock was born a daughter Harnam Kaur. The latter after her marriage with one Gaijan Singh had four children, namely, Mst. Dani, Man Singh, Pal Singh and Gurdev Singh. These four children are the Plaintiffs in the suits. Their case as set out in the plaint is that Mihan Singh, after the death of their maternal grandmother Punjab Kaur had contracted a second marriage with Mst. Mahan Kaur, Mihan Singh had died and his property had devoted upon his widow Mahan Kaur. Mahan Kaur also died but after her death, her property had been mutated in the name of Natha Singh Defendant Respondent son of Ram Singh, who in turn, was the brother of Mihan Singh. The Plaintiffs claimed that their mother Rannam Kaur having already died, they were preferential heirs to the property of Mahan Kaur deceased as against Natha Singh who was Mahan Kaur's husband's brother's son. The Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed possession of the property left by Mahan Kaur.
(2.) THE party arrayed on the other side, i.e. Natha Singh had different story to tell. According to him, the deceased Mahan Kaur was previously married with his father Ram Singh and he (Natha Singh) was their offspring After the death of his father Ram Singh, his mother Mahan Kaur contracted a marriage with Mihan Singh, brother of Ram Singh, Natha Singh, therefore, asserted that being the son of Mahan Kaur deceased though from the lions of her earlier husband Ram Singh, he had a preferential right to the property in dispute as against, the Plaintiff -Appellants who were not direct descendants of Mahan Kaur. Apart from this contention, as is usual in such suits, the relationship of the Plaintiffs with Mihan Singh through his first wife Punjab Kaur was also disputed. As a counter -blast, the Plaintiffs disputed the relationship of Natha Singh as a son of Mahan Kaur deceased. The confrontion between the parties led to the framing of the following issues: (1) Whether the Plaintiff No. 1 (Mst. Dani) is the daughter and other Plaintiffs are the sons of Harnam Kaur. The daughter of Mahan Singh, the last male holder of the property in, dispute and hence they are nearest heirs ? (2) Whether the Defendant is the son of Mahan Kaur from Ram Singh who she is alleged to have married before marrying Mihan Singh, if so, what is its effect ? (3) Whether the Defendant has not been in possession of the land in dispute as an owner after the death of Mihan Singh, husband of Mahan Kaur deceased, if so, what is its effect ? The trial Court found issue No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiffs and under issue No. 2 it was concluded that Natha Singh was not proved to be the son of Mahan Kaur. Issue No. 3, which appears to have been wrongly worded, was also decided in favour of the Plaintiffs with a finding that Mahan Kaur was in possession of the land in dispute as owner, after the death of her husband Mihan Singh. The suit of the Plaintiffs for possession of the property in dispute was consequently decreed. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Natha Singh pressed an appeal and was duly rewarded with a reversal of the decree of the, trial Court and dismissal of the suit of the Plaintiffs. While declaring the same, the lower appellate Court came to a concrete finding that Natha Singh was proved to be the son of Mahan Kaur from the loins of her first husband Ram Singh. On the basis of this finding, it was further held that by virtue of the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, I956 Natha Singh being the son of Mahan Kaur deceased would be her sole heir on her death intestate, and the Plaintiffs, who are daughter's children of Mahan Kaur's co -Wife had no claim to the inheritance in the presence of Natha Singh. The present is a second appeal in which the claim in the suit is reiterated by the Plaintiffs.
(3.) AT the outset it may be observed that the finding of the Courts below on issue No 1 in regard to the relationship of the Plaintiffs with Mihan Singh, the last holder of the property, is not disputed. Similarly, the finding under, issue No. 2 by the lower appellate court about the, paternity of Natha Singh has not been contested though a faint and futile attempt has been made to impugn the fact that Natha Singh is the son of Mahan Kaur from her previous marriage with Ram Singh. In this behalf, a reference is made to the report dated May 10, 1960 (Exhibit P. 1), wherein Natha Singh had averred that he was the sole heir to the estate of Mahan Kaur, widow of Mihan Singh who had died leaving no issue. This report has been very rightly construed by the lower appellate Court to mean that Natha Singh was obviously making a reference to Mahan Kaur having left no children from the loins of Mihan Singh. The report does not, therefore, in any way contradict the stand taken by Natha Singh in this legation . The finding of the trial Court in this behalf is, therefore, affirmed.;