1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellants / legal representatives of the defendant is as under:
"Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court holding that the defendants are not title holders and the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit property by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record?"
[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. The suit property was originally held by father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4 Khelan Satnami, which he said to have alienated