K. Kannan, J.

The plaintiffs, who are the sons of Balbir, attempted to get over the dismissal of the suit filed by Balbir against his brother Ramswarup-the second defendant by modifying the prayer in suit that mutation entered in the year 1983 treating Balbir and Ramswarup as owners was not valid. Balbir had filed the suit against Ramswarup contending that he was the owner of the property as a sole heir of Bihari and Ramswarup his brother had actually been given in adoption to Bakhtawari by adoption deed dated 03.09.1958. The suit was dismissed for default and Balbir did not take any steps to have the suit restored. Instead, the plaintiffs filed the suit even during the lifetime of the father contending that mutation entered in the year 1983 treating the second defendant Ramswarup also as a heir was incompetent and bad. The contention in defence was that the plaintiffs did not have a locus standi since Balbir was still alive and that the prayer in the suit was barred by limitation.

2. I notice that the suit had been filed in 2004 for challenging the mutation effected in the year 1983. The plaintiffs, who complained that mutation had been wrongly entered, were required to pr