DEEPAK VERMA, J. :- Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by First Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2000 decided on 25-10-2002, this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

2. Facts, giving rise to the filing of the said appeal, in a nutshell are mentioned hereinbelow :-

Plaintiff Ravindra is closely related to defendant No. 1 Ganpati, defendant No. 2 Vinod and defendant No. 3 Santosh, as they all belong to the same family. The genealogical tree, even though not required to be given, but for better appreciation, is mentioned hereinbelow :-

Malhar Rao was the original owner and common ancestor of the property. He had 4 sons; Vishnu was the eldest, next was Narayan, then Sadashiv and then the youngest being Dattatray. Narayan, the second son, had died issueless and it appears that he was not even married. Vishnu had one son i.e. defendant No. 1 Ganpati and Ganpati had one son by the name of Vinod i.e. defendant No. 2. Sadashiv had died on 27-1-90, leaving behind his son Ravindra i.e. the present plaintiff. The youngest of the 4 sons of Malhar Rao, Dattatray had died on 7-4-2000