Rajesh Balia, J.-Learned Counsel for the appellants states that since connected Appeal No. 257/2000 has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 by the present Counsel and the interests are not contrary to each other, the service of notice on Respondent No. 4 in the present appeal may be dispensed with as the learned Counsel for the appellant will be arguing both the appeals simultaneously on behalf of sons of Shiv Ram and legal representatives of Laloo, who were the original brothers and sons of Mangla, Accordingly, the service on Respondent No. 4 in the present appeal is dispensed with as his interest is represented by the appellants.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on merit of these two appeals as they are arising out of common ceiling proceedings initiated and concluded against Laloo S/o Mangla. According to the facts noticed by the learned Single Judge, the following pedigree of the two parties is as under:-

Hukma | Mangla (2010=1953-54) | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _