Viney Mittal, J.

1. The plaintiffs having remained concurrently unsuccessful in the two Courts below have filed the present regular second appeal.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) to the effect that they are owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in addition to their own share in the land in dispute and that the decree dated January 21, 1983 suffered by Basti Ram in favour of defendant-respondent Ram Karan (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was illegal, bad and had no effect upon their rights.

2. There was one Hira. He had three sons namely, Budh Ram, Ram Karan and Basti Ram and a daughter Bhati. He also left behind a widow namely, Mahasukhi. The plaintiffs are the sons daughter and widow of Budh Ram. Basti Ram was unmarried and had no issue. On January 21, 1983, he suffered a decree qua the land in dispute in favour of his real brother Ram Karan. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs on May 27, 1983, challenging the decree. Various pleas such as property being ancestral and the decree being against law and non-registration of the decree were taken by the plaintiffs to challeng