1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this defendants' second appeal are as under: -

(i) Whether the Courts below have committed an illegality by holding that the respondents are owners of the property recorded in the name of Aman Sai-predecessor-in- title of both the parties?

(ii) Whether denial of right of succession to the appellants upon the property owned by their predecessor-in-title Aman Sai at the time of his death is illegal?

(For sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial court.)

2. The following genealogical tree will demonstrate the relationship among parties: -

Aman Sai (died)
Ramcharan (died)	Raghunath (died)	Siyambar (Plaintiff)
Devlal (son) (Defendant)	Lurken (died) (Widow)

3. Late Shri Aman Sai had three sons Ramcharan, Raghunath and Siyambar as shown in the aforesaid tree. The original defendant was Devlal, S/o Ramcharan who died during the pendency of civil suit and respondents No.1 to 5 herein are legal representatives of Late Siyambar, the original plaintiff, who also died during the pendency of civil suit and who had filed the civil suit against Devlal for declaration and permanent injunction stating inter alia that the lands described in Schedule-A of the plaint were self-acquired property of Aman Sai prior to the Survey Settlement of Sarguja State. It is the case of the plaintiff that Aman Sai separated from his two sons Ramcharan and Raghunath by giving them lands described in Schedule-B & Schedule-C annexed to the plaint and the lands described in Schedule-D were retained by him. Since Siyambar, the original plaintiff, was living with his father Aman Sai, after the death of Aman Sai, Siyambar has succeeded to the property shown in Schedule-D. But the original defendant got his name mutated in the revenue records as co-owner over the suit property leading to filing of suit for the above-stated reliefs. With these facts, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction that he is title holder of the property described in Schedule-D and the defendant had no right and interest over the suit property.

4. The original defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint averments stating inter alia that the suit property shown in Schedule-B & Schedule-C were self-acquired properties of Ramcharan and Raghunath, sons of Aman Sai. The defendant further stated that after the death of Aman Sai, the properties shown in Schedule-D have been inherited by three sons Ramcharan, Raghunath and the original plaintiff, and the defendant's father and Raghunath never separated from their father during his lifetime. The defendant is also entitled for share in the properties shown in Schedule-D, therefore, decree for partition and possession of half share on the lands shown in Schedule-D be granted to him.

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record came to a specific conclusion that Aman Sai had separated his two sons namely, Ramcharan – father of the defendant and Raghunath by giving them the lands described in Schedule-B & Schedule-C and retained the properties shown in Schedule-D which was inherited by his son/original plaintiff (after the death of Aman Sai), who was living with Aman Sai, and also dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant. The trial Court also recorded a finding that the properties shown in Schedule-D are self-acquired properties of Late Aman Sai. The first appellate Court by its well reasoned judgment affirmed all the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. In second appeal preferred, the substantial questions of law have already been framed and set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

6. Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants, would