The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing the requirements for proving relationship and the relevance of conduct as evidence of opinion.

1. During the course of arguments, following substantial questions of law are shown to be involved in the present appeal; (a) Whether the evidence led by the defendants conform to the requirements of Sec. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and as such can be taken to have proved the relationship of Smt. Nandi mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with Bakhtawar Singh deceased ? (b) As to whether the learned Courts below have returned their findings on the basis of such evidence which is not admissible in view of Sec. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and are also bases upon the misreading of the evidence led by the parties? (c) Whether the Courts below having not dealt with the matter in controversy in correct perspective, the judgments are liable to be set aside being judicially perverse ?

2. The plaintiff is in appeal. He filed a suit for declaration claiming that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the land in dispute and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no interest, title or claim in the suit land.

3. The plaintiff pleaded that originally land in dispute was owned by one Chartu. Chartu had two sons, namely, Bakhtawar Singh and Munshi. Chartu died in the year 1935. His property was inherited by the aforesaid two sons, namely, Bakhtawar Singh and Munshi. Bakhtawar Singh died on October 25, 1972. The plaintiff claimed that the land in dispute was ancestral and coparcenary property. At the time of his death, Bakhtawar Singh was unmarried. Plaintiff-Niranjan Singh is the son of Munshi. The plaintiff has claimed that being son of the brother of Bakhtawar Singh, he had succeeded to the estate of Bakhtawar Singh exclusively, since there was no other heir. It was further claimed that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no title, interest or concern with the land in dispute or with the aforesaid Bakhtawar Singh and as such the mutation got sanctioned by them in their favour along with the plaintiff was illegal, bad and liable to be ignored. The plaintiff claimed that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land through the tenants and mortgagees. On the aforesaid averments, the suit was filed.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They denied the existence of any Joint Hindu Family as claimed by the plaintiff. It was also denied that the property was coparcenary property. They claimed that besides Bakhtawar Singh and Munshi, Chartu had also a daughter Nandi. Defendant No. 1 is the son and defendant No. 2 is the daughter of the aforesaid Nandi. It was claimed by the defendants that they being also the heirs are entitled to inherit the land left by deceased-Bakhtawar Singh and the mutation in their favour had already been sanctioned.

5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, held that the property in dispute was the Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property of the plaintiff and the deceased Bakhtawar Singh and his ancestors. It was further held that Chartu also had a daughter, namely, Nandi, who was the real sister of Bakhtawar Singh and Munshi. Thus, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, being the children of the aforesaid Smt. Nandi, along with the plaintiff, were entitled to succeed to the estate of Bakhtawar Singh. However, on the basis of the findings that the property in dispute was the coparcenary property, the plaintiff was held entitled to the suit land being the sole surviving coparcener. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

6. The defendants took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence. On such re-appraisal, the learned first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the property in dispute was not shown to be coparcenary property. It was also held that Nand Kaur (Nandi) was the daughter of Chartu and was the sister of Bakhtawar Singh. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being the children of the aforesaid Smt. Nand Kaur were entitled to succeed to the estate of Bakhtawar Singh along with the plaintiff. Accordingly, the