Mahajan, J.

1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are elaborately stated in my referring order dated February 28, 1969, and need not be reproduced. When the matter came up before us in Division Bench on January 22, 1970, we came to the conclusion that the decision on issue No. 1 was not proper and that the original documents had not been considered. We, therefore, remitted the case to the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, to decide this issue afresh after permitting any additional evidence which the parties may produce before him. The learned Judge has in pursuance of our order dealt with the matter and has submitted his report. His report is that the plaintiff is the son of Shrimati Harnam Kaur.

2. There is no dispute now before us that the property in dispute must be treated as the property of Harnam Kaur and it will devolve on her heirs. It is also not disputed that Shrimati Harnam Kaur left behind the plaintiff and Har Kaur, a daughter. The daughter is dead and is survived by her only son Partap Singh who is P.W. 4. Mr. Wasu contends that the report of the learned Additional District Judge holding the plaintiff to be the son of Shrimati Harnam Kaur, cannot b