JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J., (Oral): The defendants/appellants are in second appeal before this Court. Suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was partly decreed by the learned trial court against which two separate appeals were filed by both the sides and stand dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Court, thus, stands affirmed in first appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents have not laid any challenge to the decree passed by the learned first appellate. Parties, herein-after, in the judgment shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. One Twarsu is conceded to be the common ancestor of the parties and the property is said to be ancestral. Twarsu was the last male holder, who held the property in dispute as owner and he is said to have died issueless. He left behild two widows Mst. Maina and Mst. Gaurju. Mst. Maina came to occupy the suit land and made a gift of a part of this land in favour of Wazira, who was defendant No. l. This gift was made way back on May 27, 1949. 3. The plaintiffs claiming to be the reversioners of Twarsu, filed a declaratory suit laying challenge to the alienation which was in respect of the property (A). The said suit was decreed and the alienation was declared inoperative so far as the rights of the plaintiffs as reversioners, were concerned. Appeal filed by Mst. Maina was dismissed. The judgment and decree has, thus, attained finality. Defendant No. l is further alleged to have sold a part of the land in dispute in the year 1950. Mst. Maina has admittedly died on April 5. 1970. Defendant No. l has come to occupy the entire land and the same is said to be in his exclusive possession. A part of the land as said above, stands sold by defendant No. l in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 and the said transfer is alleged to be illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, as they are reversioners of the last male holder and have claimed possession of the suit land on the death of Mst. Maina. 4. Though, defendant No. 1 and defendants No.2 to 4 have filed separate written statements, yet have taken identical pleas. Defendants No.2 to 4 have come up with the plea that they are the nearest reversioners of Twarsu and their father was his real brother. Maina. 4. Though, defendant No. 1 and defendants No.2 to 4 have filed separate written statements, yet have taken identical pleas. Defendants No.2 to 4 have come up with the plea that they are the nearest reversioners of Twarsu and their father was his real brother. Defendant No. 1 pleaded himself to be pichlag son of Mst. Maina and claims himself the entitlement to succeed to the property left by Mst. Maina. Defendants No.2 to 4 also alleged themselves to be the bonafide purchasers of the suit land. 5. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, the learned trial Court found that there was overwhelming documentary as well as oral evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiffs are nearer reversioners of the last male holder Twarsu and defendants No.2 to 4 are not in any way related to deceased, and their father Ganu through whom the inheritence is being claimed, was not the brother of Twarsu. The learned Courts further found that Mst. Maina was in possession of the suit land at the time of coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1936, and as per application of Section 14 of the said Act, she has become the full owner of the suit property as given in portion B’. It was also found that Mst. Maina never alienated any part of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1. As a sequence of the discussion, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the decree claimed by them in respect of portion A, in respect of the suit land and so far as the plaintiffs claim for possession in respect of portion B is concerned, the suit was ordered to be dismissed. 6. Both the parties preferred two separate appeals, which have been disposed of by a common judgment, which is impugned by the defendants. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants is at pains to argue that the learned first appellate court has wrongly observed that the matter is res judicata and there was absolutely no basis for holding that Ganu, father of defendants No.2 to 4, was not the real brother of Twarsu. 8. The next argument which is pressed in service is that there is overwhelming evidence placed on record that Ganu was the real brother of Twarsu. 8. The next argument which is pressed in service is that there is overwhelming evidence placed on record that Ganu was the real brother of Twarsu. The third argument that is being raised is that the suit is hit by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the plaintiffs, who had the opportunity to raise the pleas in the plaint in respect of Ganu never made a mention in the plaint and never pleaded that the matter was res judicata. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel has vehemently contended that Ext.P-12 is an order passed by the Revenue Officer and nothing said therein amounts to a final adjudication about the real points of controversy raised therein. It is also pointed out that in their statements PW-l and DW-S have admitted the relationship of Ganu with Twarsu as real brothers. Reliance is also placed on Ext. DW- 7/A, which is written statement filed by Mst. Maina in the earlier suit which was filed by Ganu. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the Parivar register maintained by the Panchayat, Ext. DA, which is proved by the Pradhan of the Panchayat and the Secretary, who have been examined as DW-1 and DW-2. Some arguments arc also raised on the basis of pedigree table, Ext.DW-7/B, where the name of Ganu appeared and on the basis of this, the argument is projected that undisputedly Ganu was the real brother of last male holder and, therefore, defendants No.2 to 4 are nearer reversioners and in their presence the plaintiffs cannot succeed. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has, in reply, adopted the same reasoning as is projected by the learned Courts below in the impugned judgments. Learned Counsel further submits that the defendants arc neither bonafide purchasers nor nearer reversioners. A finding of fact has been recorded that Ganu was not the real brother of Twarsu and in the judgment rendered by the Civil Court, Ext.P-12, it has been specifically held that Ganu is not the son of the father of Twarsu and, therefore, is not his real brother. A finding of fact has been recorded that Ganu was not the real brother of Twarsu and in the judgment rendered by the Civil Court, Ext.P-12, it has been specifically held that Ganu is not the son of the father of Twarsu and, therefore, is not his real brother. Learned Counsel heavily relies upon the pedigree table prepared at the time of final settlement and on the basis of which it is argued that there is no rebuttal from the side of the defendants on this vital document and admittedly Ganu was alive when the suit was filed. It has not come on record as to when he died. Defendants were, thus, under an obligation to produce him as a witness in the case so that the truth could have come out. 10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on appreciation of pleadings and on perusal of the record, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. 11. Admittedly, the plaintiffs way back in the year 1950 had laid challenge to the alienation made by Mst. Maina in the form of a gift and that suit was decreed. The judgment passed in that suit is Ext.P-10 placed on record. The alienation was set aside and it was categorically recorded that it would be inoperative in so far as the rights of the plaintiffs as reversioners arc concerned on the death of Mst. Maina. Concededly, appeal against this decree was dismissed vide judgment Ext.P-11 and the judgment has become final. 12. In view of this, it can safely be held that the plaintiffs are that reversioners of the last male holder of the suit land, i.e., Twarsu. The question! is whether defendants have succeeded in establishing that Ganu was the real brother of Twarsu. Genealogical table prepared during settlement Ext.PW-6/A proves that one Jasodha was the common was the common ancestor of the last full onwer and the plaintiffs arc connected with him. The name of Ganu is conspicuously missing in this pedigree table. No reliance can be placed on the pedigree table Ex.DW-7/B, reliance on which is being placed by the defendants. This was prepared at the time of settlement carried out in the State of Mandi in the year 1915. This appears to have been incorporated by the field staff of the revenue department. No reliance can be placed on the pedigree table Ex.DW-7/B, reliance on which is being placed by the defendants. This was prepared at the time of settlement carried out in the State of Mandi in the year 1915. This appears to have been incorporated by the field staff of the revenue department. When the pedigree table was finally approved, the name Ganu was deleted from Ext.D.W-7/B. The fact is clear from the foot-note appearing on this pedigree table. Ext.P-12 is the judgment passed by the Revenue Assistant in the suit filed by him against Twarsu. It was held that Ganu was not entitled to succeed to the property of Ragho, father of Twarsu and the suit filed by him was ordered to be dismissed. 13. Learned Counsel, Mr. Malhotra, appearing for the defendants is, thus, not right in his submission that the judgment does not finally decide the controversy. There are neither pleadings nor any issue on which such a decision was given. A reading of Ext.P-12 shows that it was a civil suit. In the erstwhile state, the Revenue Officers were also dealing with civil disputes and the record shows that it was a suit for possession and the decision was given on the basis of a report obtained from the Tehsildar (Settlement). There is a finding to the effect that plaintiff, who in that suit was Ganu, is not proved to be the son of Ragho and no evidence to that effect has been placed on record on the basis of which he could be considered to have a claim on the property and the suit is dismissed. Learned first appellate Court has loosely used the word res judicata and in my view, the point raised is covered by issues No. I and 3, which have been taken together and disposed of by the learned trial court under one heading. 14. From the evidence on behalf of defandants DW-4 and DW-6, it has come on record that father of defendants No.2 to 4 is alive. It is really surprising as to why his presence was withheld from the court. An adverse inference can safely be drawn in this matter and would go against the defendants. 14. From the evidence on behalf of defandants DW-4 and DW-6, it has come on record that father of defendants No.2 to 4 is alive. It is really surprising as to why his presence was withheld from the court. An adverse inference can safely be drawn in this matter and would go against the defendants. The learned trial court has further that there was sum confusion in respect of the name of grand father of defendants No.2 to 4, who was infact Akloo and Abloo, who was last male holder of Twarsu. It is because of this confusion that defendants No.2 to 4 are said to be claiming relationship with Twarsu, the last male holder. 15. The proposition of law as laid down is very clear that when a suit is filed by the reversioner against a limited heir or a widow seeking declaration that the alienation made is not binding, the said suit is to be considered as a representative suit on behalf of the entire body of reversioners. Defendants No.2 to 4 claimed themselves to be the bonafide purchasers. It is really not understood as to how they could claim the same land in two different capacities one as nearer reversioners and second as bonafide purchasers. If the defendants were so sure about their being nearer reversioners, the question of purchase by them would not arise, as they would automatically be held entitled to succeed to the property left behind by Twarsu. 16. Moreover, there is nothing on record to prove the contention raised by defendants No.2 to 4 that they are bonafide purchasers. 17. In my view, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants that the admission made by Mst. Maina in written statement would conclusively prove that Ganu was the real brother of Twarsu. According to learned Counsel, the matter was not to operate res judicata as the matter was left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. I am unable to scribe to that view simply because the learned first appellate Court has used the word res judicata, the same does not in any case advance the arguments of the learned counsel. Parivar register on which reliance is being placed shall have no value in the light of the entries existing in the record of rights in the shape of pedigree table. Parivar register on which reliance is being placed shall have no value in the light of the entries existing in the record of rights in the shape of pedigree table. These genealogical tables arc prepared by the officials of the revenue department after detailed enquiry. The name of Ganu, which had appeared in a summary way was rightly to be deleted when the final settlement was approved. 18. Defendants No.2 to 4, admittedly, have taken no steps to see as to why the name of their father was deleted from the genealogical table nor any effort was made to get his name inserted, once it was ordered to be deleted. Similarly, no reliance can be placed on the oral testimony of the witnesses to prove the relationship, as in my view this evidence lacks the ingredients of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. 19. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. The defendants claim their right, title and interest, as being sons of Ganu. Whether Ganu was the real brother of Twarsu, was negatived in the civil suit, judgment of which is Ext.P-12. It is in this context that the learned first appellate court happened to make an observation that the matter already stood decided and is res judicata. 20. In view of what has been said above, there is no applicability of order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the facts and circumstances of this case. The argument in this respect is rejected. 21. In my considered view, both the learned Courts below have reached to a just and proper decision, which is based on proper appreciation of material placed on record by the parties. No case of mis-reading of evidence or mis-interpretation has been made out. The appeal calls for no interference and is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.