2007 that his maternal grand-father expired prior to 42 years which has not been rebutted by the plaintiff by recording evidence. As such, provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will be applicable in the facts of the case. Therefore, defendant No.2 Khorbahrin Bai will fall within the ambit of Class-I category of heirs and the defendant No. 1 and 3 being son of defendant No. 2 will fall in Class-II category. In the present case, the defendant No. 2 being daughter of Kejuram will inherit the property of her father on account of Class-I heir and the defendant No. 1 has no right to acquire the property or to give it to the partition to his son plaintiff, as such the whole alleged partition is contrary to the law, therefore, the defendant No. 2 cannot be held only owner of the suit property left by his maternal grand-father. Learned trial Court has also recorded its fidning that the adoption of defendant No.2 has not been proved by the plaintiffl. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are legal, justified and do not suffer from perversity or erroneous one which warrants interference. Thus, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered against the appellant/plaintiff.
