G.C.Garg, J.

1. Heard. Admittedly, the property in dispute which is anoestcal, was inherited by Harbilas from his father Jagan Ram alias Jagan Nath. Hartbilas has two sons, namely, defendant Krishan Kumar and plaintiff Ashok Kumar besides a daughter Sushila Krishan Kumar filed a suit Somewhere in the year 11980 against his father Harbilas for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in 1 possession of the property in question which fell to his, share in a family settlement, The suit was decreed on account of the statement made, by Harbilas.

2. Ashok Kumar the other son of Harbilas filed a suit for declaration that decree dated 21.1.1980 relating to the property in-dispute was illegal, against law and was not binding on his rights. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 4.9.1992 dismissed the suit. However,, the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. This is how one of the defendants has filed the present appeal .

3. During the course of hearing it could not be disputed that Krishan Kumar filed the previous suit against. Herbilas based on a family settlement and on the allegation that the property in dispu