Kiran Anand Lall, J.

1. By this judgment, I will disposing of a Regular Second Appeal of Devi Ram plaintiff-appellant and the cross objections of Shanti Devi defendant-respondent. Learned first appellate court had accepted appeal of Shanti Devi defendant against the decretal of suit by trial court and dismissed the suit but while doing so, it also recorded a finding that the defendant-respondent was also not entitled to inherit any share in the property left by Smt. Badami.

2. In the suit plaintiff had claimed a declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute, due to being legal heir of Smt. Badami and also on the basis of a Will made by her in his favour on 7.5.1946 "in a partition File No. 20 decided on 7.5.1946". He had also claimed consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the land. Pedigree-table of the plaintiff, as given in the plaint, was as under :-

MN_552.htm

3. It was pleaded in the plaint that defendant was not related to Badami, in any way, and therefore, she had no concern with her inheritance. But she had fraudulently got sanctioned mutation (bearing No. 1252)