DAVE, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal in a suit for declaration by the plaintiffs who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to the property of one Kanyalal Bagani who died at Phalodi in the year 1937. It appears from the plaint that the plaintiffs Tansukhdas and Meghraj were challaned by the police for stealing the property of the deceased Kanyalal. They were convicted by the Chief Court of the former State of Jodhpur under Section 411 of the Marwar Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. It was further ordered by that Court that the property in dispute would be returned to the present respondent Mt. Soni unless the plaintiffs -appellants could prove their right to that property in a civil court. Accordingly the plaintiffs filed the Present suit in the court Of the Judicial Superintendent Phalodi on 15 -5 -1942. It was averred by them that they were uncles of the deceased Kanyalal, while defendant Mt. Soni was the widow of Bhagwandas, a pre -deceased son of Kanyalal, that she was only entitled to maintenance, that she had no right of inheritance in the presence of the plaintiffs, that the deceased Kanyalal had not left any will in the defendant's favour as claimed by her and therefore, they requested the court to give a declaration in their favour that they were entitled to get the property which was in the custody of the Magistrate First Class Phalodi and which was mentioned in the Schedule given with the plaint. The appellants' suit was contested by the respondent on the ground that the deceased Kanyalal had made a will at Madras where he was carrying on business, that it was duly registered, that by the said will, the appellants were not entitled to get the property in d spute and their suit was fit to be dismissed. The following issues were framed by the trial court: (1) Whether the will Ex, D. 1 was executed for the deceased Kanyalal. (2) In case the will Ex. D. 1 is proved to have been executed by Kanyalal, whether it is invalid and void against the plaintiffs. (3) Whether the property mentioned in Schedule A belongs to the plaintiffs. (4) In case the property mentioned in Schedule A is proved to belong to the deceased Kanyalal. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit it and whether they are his legal heirs. (5) Whether the court -fee paid is insufficient (6) Belief.
(3.) AFTER recording evidence of both the parties, the trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit on 18 -8 -1949. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiffs went in appeal but it was dismissed by the Judge, Additional District Court, Jodhpur, on 21 -11 -1950, and hence they have come to this Court.;