Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves Ram Saran and another as plaintiffs, who jointly owned certain property with Chhabili Kuer. After her death, Ganga Devi, the defendant, claimed to be her legal representative and obtained mutation in her name (!) .

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of their sole ownership of the property, without claiming possession of the entire or any part of it (!) .

3. The fact-finding courts determined that during Chhabili Kuer's lifetime, she possessed a portion of the property, while the plaintiffs possessed the other portion. After her death, Ganga Devi unlawfully took possession of the properties that were in Chhabili Kuer's possession. The courts also found that Ganga Devi was not an heir of Chhabili Kuer, but the plaintiffs were her heirs (!) .

4. The courts below held that the suit was governed by a specific limitation period under relevant property law, and since the suit was not filed within three years of the cause of action, it was barred by limitation. The High Court concurred and additionally held that the suit was barred under a specific provision of the law relating to specific relief (!) (!) .

5. The appellate court agreed that the suit was barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act because the plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership without seeking possession of the properties Ganga Devi was in possession of. As a result, the suit was found to be not maintainable (!) .

6. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the decision was upheld that the suit was barred by law and thus not maintainable (!) .

7. The citation of the case is for reference purposes and does not impact the legal principles discussed (!) .

Please let me know if you need any further analysis or assistance.