1. The defendants have knocked the doors of this Court by filing an appeal under section 100 of CPC assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No. II-AI 1997 whereby the suit of plaintiffs-respondents has been decreed and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiffs has been reversed and set aside.

2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that the original plaintiffs were Mustafa Khan, Hatim Khan, Jumman Khan and Waheed Khan. The original defendants are Shanti Bai, Prem Narayan, Bhujbal and Haricharan. Hustafa Khan, Hatim Khan and Jumman Khan are the sons of Shakkar Khan (Shakur Khan). Rustam Khan was also of son Shakur Khan. In brief the suit of plaintiffs is that they are the Bhoomiswami of the agricultural land which is the subject matter of the suit. According to the plaintiffs their father Shakur Khan was in the service of millitary and was a T.B. patient as a result of which he became infirm and ultimately at the age of 91 years he heavenly abode. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that possession of survey No. 1271, which is the part of suit land, was taken by the father-in-law of defendant No.1, namely, Dangal from Shakur Khan, by taking his undue advantage of his infirmity. Similarly, another survey No. 879, which is also the part of suit property, was illegally possessed by Radhey Lal in the year, 1957 and thereafter with the collusion of Patwari incorrectly got their name recorded as Shikimi (sub-tenant) in the revenue record. In the plaint, it has also been pleaded that said Dangal died 10 years prior to the filing of the suit (suit was filed on 26.4.1977) and defendant No.1 is his heir (daughter-in-law). After the death of Dan gal and Shakur Khan, no agreement was executed between plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to give the suit property on lease.

3. Defendant No.1 (Shanti Bai) submitted an application to record her name as Shikimi in the revenue record in place of deceased Dangal in the Court of Nayab Tahsildar, Raghogarh and also for conferral of Bhoomiswami right. This application was submitted on 11.3.1974 which was registered as Case No. 56-A-46174175 although defendant is not having any right, title and interest in the suit property and she is only a trespasser. Similarly, there was no privity of contract between defendant No.2 and Shakur Khan or plaintiffs nor the suit land was given to him on Shikimi basis. On these premised pleadings, it has been prayed by plaintiffs that they be declared Bhoomiswami ofthe suit property and possession be delivered to them.

4. During pendency of the suit one of the plaintiffs Mustafa died and his LRs. were brought on record. Similarly, on account of the death of defendant No.3 Bhujbal Singh his LRs were brought on record.

5. The defendants by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and specifically pleaded that the suit is barred by time and further it has been denied that Shakur Khan was serving in military and was a disabled person. It has also been pleaded that said Shakur Khan submitted an application before Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghogarh to obtain possession and the Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dated 23.7.1963 dismissed the application of Shakur Khan.

6. The learned trial Court after framing necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and after considering oral and documentary evidence as well as the pleadings of the parties held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case and eventually dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs, thereafter filed first appeal before learned First Appellate Court, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed.

7. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendants before this Court. On 12.8.2008 this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law :

1. "Whether the suit