Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants on admission of second appeal and perused the records.

2. Plaintiff-appellants had filed Original Suit No. 1683/1988 with averment that disputed property, which is agricultural in nature, is ancestral property of the Joint Hindu Family of the parties. But due to overt acts of the defendants, it was been recorded in revenue records in the name of defendants only. Being coparcener plaintiffs have co-parcenary and co-bhumidhari rights and are owner of 1/8th share of this property, therefore they had filed suit for partition and also for permanent injunction against defendants praying relief for not interfering in their possession of 1/8th share of disputed property.

3. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.25, Deoria had dismissed the Original Suit No. 1683/1988 by its judgment dated 11.5.2009, in which finding was given that plaintiffs had failed to prove their joint ownership. Trial Court had also given finding that since disputed property is recorded in revenue records in the name of defendants, and plaintiffs have also filed suit