Viney Mittal, J.

1. The defendant is in first appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present controversy may be noticed. The plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of one Sukhram (brother of defendant Ganpat), filed a suit for possession of a house at Ujjain, claiming-themselves to be the owners thereof. The aforesaid suit was filed on February 17, 1992. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the house in question was originally owned by Panchamji, their grandfather (father of Sukhram and Ganpat), who according to the plaintiffs had died on February 16, 1983 (the said date of death of Panchamji was disputed by the defendant, who claim that Panchamji had died on March 2, 1977).

3. According to the plaintiffs, Panchamji had left behind a Will dated January 14, 1977, bequeathing the said house to Sukhram as exclusive owner. After the death of Sukhram, the house in question had been succeeded by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the defendant had been living in the said house with the consent of Sukhram, being his real brother but had absolutely no legal right to retain the possession of the house. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that earlier a suit was filed with regard to the h