ORDER

1. Application for substitution is allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. By the impugned order, High Court has dismissed the second appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law was involved therein.

5. Having heard the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that High Court was not justified in observing that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In our view, the following substantial questions of law do arise in the second appeal:

"(2) Whether the findings of the trial court on issue No. (VII) that Pokhani inherited the property as her husband Bifan Ram was the last male holder in the branch of Rucha Ram is based on error of record in appreciating averments made in paragraph 18 of the written statement which read with the averment made in paragraph 10 of the written statement makes out a clear case that Bifan Ram predeceased his father Rucha Ram, therefore inadvertently using the words that Bifan was the last male heirs becomes meaningless read with the further continuous statement in the same sentence that Bifan Ram was the last male heirs in the branch of Late Rucha Ram @ Rupa Ram who predeceased his