Khem Chand Sharma, J. - (1.) By this civil second appeal u/s. 100 CPC the plaintiff-appellants challenge the judgment and decree dated 25.3.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deeg whereby he while allowing the first appeal of the defendant-respondents reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Deeg.
(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be summarised that the parties to the appeal are me descendants of one common ancestor. Appellants' father Gaddar Mal and father of the respondents-Chotey Lal were sons of Mannn Lal. Mannu Lal and Gaddar Mai purchased the suit property as a Joint Hindu Family property. Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for partition of the suit property against Chotey Lal, who expired during pendency of the suit and was substituted by the present respondents. It was averred in the plaint that after the death of Mannu Lal, appellants' father and respondent became owner and were in possession of the Joint Hindu Family Property wherein the appellants and respondents have got equal half share. The respondents admitted that the suit property was purchased as Joint Hindu Family Property but the case of the respondents in the written statement was-that after-purchase of the house, appellants' father was adopted by one Gopal Das. Therefore, after adoption plaintiffs' father had no interest in the property.
(3.) The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties vide its judgment and decree dated 31.8.1987 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant-respondents filed regular civil first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Deeg, who vide its judgment and decree dated 25.3.1991 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. Hence, this second appeal before this Court.;