JUDGMENT This is plaintiffs' second appeal under section 100 CPC against the judgment of reversal. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration as also perpetual injunction. First Civil Judge, Class II, Sehore by judgment and decree dated 19.11.1982 passed in Civil Suit No. 14A/80 decreed the suit and held that plaintiffs are the Bhumiswami of six acres of land situated in village Pipariya in the District of Sehore. Defendant aggrieved by the same preferred Civil Appeal No. 10-A/83 and the District Judge by judgment and decree dated 3.12.1988 allowed the appeal held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land to the extent of half share. Aggrieved the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under section 100 CPC. Admitted facts of the case are that the suit property originally belonged to Ganesh. Ganesh had a widow Devli Bai and daughter Premi Bai, defendant herein. The name of the defendant was recorded as Bhumiswami in place of deceased Ganesh and Devli after their death. According to the plaintiffs their predecessor-in-interest purchased the suit land by registered sale-deed dated 26.6.1988 from Devlibai, mother of defendant for Rs. 2,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the purchase, their predecessor-in-interest was put in possession of the suit property. It has been stated that the property was purchased by the plaintiffs with the consent of the defendant and it is bonafide purchase. Case of the plaintiff further is that Devli Bai sold the land to the plaintiffs for the betterment of the family and in fact, Devli purchased 6.70 acres of land in the name of defendant's son Radhelal. Held: This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the first appellate Court is justified in not granting the relief for declaration, in respect of the land purchased from Shrimati Devli Bai?" Shri Naik appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the defendant could' succeed to the property of Ganesh only when it is held that her father died after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. He submits that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has decided this question. Accordingly he prays that the matter be remanded for decision on this question by the trial Court. He submits that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has decided this question. Accordingly he prays that the matter be remanded for decision on this question by the trial Court. However, in my opinion, as the evidence on record is sufficient on the question of death of the defendant's father, I am not inclined to remand the matter to the trial Court for decision. It appears that before the lower appellate Court this point was not raised and the lower appellate Court has held as follows: "It is common ground that lands in suit belonged to deceased Ganesh who was the father of defendant and· husband of defendant's mother Devli. Therefore, after the death of Ganesh, the only heirs left by Ganesh were the defendant and her mother Devli who died in the year 1970 i.e. after the alleged sale in favour of Chainsingh, predecessor of the present plaintiff." True it is, that there is no finding as to when Ganesh died. Defendant has stated in the written-statement that Ganesh died sometimes in the year 1964-65 and after his death according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act defendant as also Devli became the joint owners of the property. Defendant DWI in her deposition has stated that Ganesh died about 17-18 years back. The evidence of this witness was recorded on 29.9.1982. There is no cross-examination by the plaintiff on this point. In view of the statement made by the defendant in the written-statement, her evidence and in the absence of any assertion to the contrary and material produced by the plaintiffs, I have no hesitation in holding that defendant's father Ganesh died after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Defendant being one of the heirs of Ganesh, the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the sale-deed executed by Devli shall be valid to the extent of her share. Substantial question of law formulat6d is thus answered against the plaintiffs-appellants. Appeal dismissed.