the property of Simartha has been exhaustively dealt with by the trial court inasmuch as it was found that P.W.1 – Bhagirath Ram, plaintiff no. 5, himself stated in his cross examination that he did not know whether Bhanwara Ram was son of Ramu Ram or Dula Ram and he has not seen Ramu Ram and Dula Ram. He also indicated that he did not see Rupi Devi & Dula Ram living together. He further indicated that he only heard about it from his mother, brothers and elders and he also admitted that the averments made in the affidavit in examination-in-chief were hearsay. P.W.3, Champa Lal, also denied having seen Dula Ram and Rupi Devi living together and that he did not know as to whether Bhanwara Ram was son of Rupa Ram or Dula Ram. P.W.4, Chain Singh Rajpurohit, denied even the indication made in the affidavit filed in examination-in-chief and regarding all other aspects. P.W.5, Pep Singh, denied having known Bhanwara Ram. As such, from the evidence led by the plaintiffs nothing was proved, on the other hand, the documents produced including the mutation entry, voter list (Ex.A/10 & A/11), voter ID cards (Ex.A/2 and A/3), indication made in the title of the suit, wherein, Bhanwara Ram has been shown as son of Ramu Ram and the fact that in Ex. A/4, the appeal filed before Revenue Appellate Authority by the plaintiffs along with defendant Bhanwara Ram and Smt. Rupi Devi, they were indicated as wife & son of Ram Lal (Ramu Ram), clearly demolish the case of the appellants in relation to questioning the fact that defendant no. 2, Bhanwara Ram, was son of deceased Ramu Ram, who was son of Simartha and as such the findings recorded by the two courts below in this regard cannot be faulted and/or give rise to any substantial question of law.
