1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against

the Judgment and Decree dated 10-10-1994 passed by 4^th Additional

District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No.

22-A/1992, thereby reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 9-4-1992

passed by 2^nd Civil Judge Class 2, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 87-A/1991.

4

2. The Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Question of

Law :

“Was the original holder Laxman not competent to execute the

Will Ex. P.5, regarding the property alleged to be ancestral.”

3. I.A. No. 12009 of 2011 has been filed under Section 100(5) of CPC,

whereas I.A. No. 10367 of 2017 has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of

CPC.

4. The Counsel for the Appellant didnot refer to these applications at all.

Thus, it is clear that Counsel for the Appellants was not interested in

pressing I.A. No. 12009 of 2011 and I.A. No. 10367 of 2017,

accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

5. The facts of the present case in short are that Narmada Prasad filed a

suit for declaration of title by pleading interalia that Laxman S/o Ram

Prasad Patel was the owner of Kh. No 89 and 92. Laxman was the

exclusive owner of Kh. No. 158/2 ar