The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their claim of marriage and inheritance through admissible evidence.

V.K. Ahuja, J.:

This is a Regular Second Appeal field by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, dated 1.8.2003, vide which the learned District Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, dated 27.2.2003, vide which he had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for partition etc.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’, filed a suit for partition of the residential house, saw mill, flour mill/Chakki, Kharad machine and spinning machine. It was alleged by the plaintiff that one Shiv Ram was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 237/185/34 and the shops and residential house constructed thereon. It was alleged that two shops had been constructed by Shiv Ram and he had also installed saw mill, flour mill/Chakki, Kharad machine and spinning machine in the above mentioned shops. The said Shiv Ram died leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs, being his widow, son and daughters. It was alleged that the defendants are daughters from his deceased wife Santi and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are his children from plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Bimla. Mutation of inheritance of the said property was attested in favour of the parties by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on 23.4.1994 qua the suit land, shops and house. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 3/5 shares out of the total 6 shares in the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land is joint in between the parties and has not been partitioned so far. Hence, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs.

3. Defendant No.1 took up preliminary submissions in regard to estopple, locus-standi etc. On merits, it was admitted that the land is recorded in the ownership of Shiv Ram, who had constructed one house and installed machines etc. It was further alleged that plaintiff No. 1 got mutation No. 201 entered behind the back of defendant No. 1 by getting her name incorporated wrongly without notice to the defendants. The said mutation was wrong and is not binding upon the defendants. It was alleged that on the death of Shiv Ram, the defendants and their mother Shanti succeeded him in equal shares and thereafter, Shanti also expired and defendants succeeded her in equal shares. The defendants have allegedly made improvements in the structure and no marriage took place in between plaintiff No. 1 and deceased Shiv Ram and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were not born from the loins of deceased Shiv Ram. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased and since the mutation was wrongly attested, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit land.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners of the suit property and plaintiffs are entitled to their share by way of partition? …. OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? … OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi? … OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as alleged? … OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? … OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? … OPD

7. Relief.

5. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment decided Issue No. 1 as against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants.

6. On appeal those findings were affirmed by the learned District Judge.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

8. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that there has been complete misreading of evidence oral as well as documentary by the