C.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiffs Mst. Nathi and Mst Gaini and the defendant No. 1 Mst. Sebu, who, is now dead and is represented by her husband No. 1 and her son respondent No.2 were the three daughters of one Dhanna Jat. who is said to have died in Section 1969 equivalent to 1939 A.D., leaving behind the widow Mst. Heera and three daughters. Mst Heera died in Dec.1957 and after her death the plaintiff -appellants filed the present suit on 7 -3 -1960 for declaration that each of the three daughters of Dhanna is entitled to 1/3rd share in the property of Dhanna. It was also prayed that a perpetual injunction be issued against the defendants viz defendant No. 1 Mst Sebu and her son defendant No. 2 Birbal not to interfere in the share of the plaintiffs.
(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that Mst. Heera had bequeathed the whole of the property belonging to her in favour of the defendant No. 1 Mst. Sebu and her son Birbal, and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any share out of it. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property, and therefore, the suit for mere declaration was not maintainable. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the Munsiff, Sikar, found that the execution of the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances which have not been cleared away by satisfactory evidence and consequently according to law of inheritance the plaintiffs were entitled to get 2/3rd share in the property in dispute. He also held that since the property in question was an undivided, property, and, therefore, each of the co -shares will be deemed to be in possession on behalf of all and consequently the suit was maintainable even without relief for possession In this view of the matter he decreed the plaintiff's suit and held that each of the two plaintiffs was entitled to get 1/3 rd share in the property left by Mst. Heera.
(3.) THE appeal filed by the defendants from the judgment and decree of the trial court was however, allowed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. Consequently the plaintiffs have come in second appeal to this court.;