JUDGMENT Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. The substantial questions of law to be answered in this second, appeal are : (A) Whether the Lower Appellate Court could have reversed the findings of the trial Court by merely relying or oral evidence of witnesses and ignoring documentary evidence? (B) Whether in view of admission of the plaintiff as well as Ext. 6, the learned lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff was the landlord of the suit premises? (C) Whether a mere suit for ejectment under the B.B.C. Act, 1982 is maintainable against a co-owner? (D) Whether a family arrangement made between the co-sharers requires registration? The appellant was at liberty to raise any other points at the time of hearing of this appeal, but no fresh question was raised. 2. The questions aforesaid arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff- respon-dent filed a suit against defendant- appellants for eviction from the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent as also on the ground of personal necessity of the suit land. The suit land is a shop standing over the portion of M.S. Plot No. 623 being portion of holding No. 773, Ward No. II, Ranchi Municpality, Ranchi, situated in Upper Bazar, Marwari Tola, Ranchi, bounded in North Jai Gurdeo Cloth Store of Satya Narain, south Bodh Bihar Electric Agency, East Road and West House of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the suit land as owner of the land. His case is that in December 1975 the said premises was tenanted to Sri Ganesh Textiles, which was owned by Mahesh Kumar Poddar, husband of defendant No. 2, and others at the monthly rental of Rs. 450/-. In the year 1980 they left the premises and in, August 1980 the suit premises was tenanted to Ganesh Fabrics, owned by defendants the original tenant Mahesh Kumar Poddar and Hemant Kumar Poddar sons of Mahabir Prasad Poddar at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. According to the terms of the tenancy the rent of the current month is payable in the subsequent month and the tenancy is according to the English calendar month commencing from the first day and ending on the last day of the same month, but from January 1981 onwards inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff the rent was not paid to him. The plaintiff was in great domestic trouble for a long time and he became financially handicapped hence he could no file the suit. Further case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff-respondent requires the building described in Schedule-A to the plaint for his own use and occupation bona fide, reasonably and in good faith as his sons have become major and are sitting idle and, therefore, as his sons constitute a joint Hindu family with the plaintiff, the plaintiff in order to settle them, requires the land in question for personal necessity. The relief was claimed for eviction of the defendants and for making over of the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants and the main case of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable because in the garb of eviction suit, in fact, it was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. According to the defendants-appellants the plaintiff was never the land lord in respect of the suit land and the description of the suit premises is vague and the plaintiff has not disclosed as to how he had acquired the title to the suit property described in Schedule-A. It was denied that Sri Ganesh Textiles was tenanted in that premises in the year 1975, rather it was pleaded that office and place of the business of Sri Ganesh Textiles was in North marked Road, which he had taken on rent from one Mandodari Devi and he was tenanted in that house. After functioning for one year that firm became defunct and was closed. Therefore, it was stated by them that it was wrong on the part of the plaintiff to allege that Sri Ganesh Textiles was tenanted in August 1980. It was also denied that Sri Ganesh Fabrics was also inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. The specific defence was that in fact Municipal Plot No. 623 was ancestral property, which was the subject matter of Partition Suit No. 385 of 1913. In the said partition suit the property was divided into two parts and one part was allotted to Luxmi Narayan Poddar and the other to Ballabux Poddar, the grand father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 3 and the grand father in law of the defendant No. 2. In the said partition suit the property was divided into two parts and one part was allotted to Luxmi Narayan Poddar and the other to Ballabux Poddar, the grand father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 3 and the grand father in law of the defendant No. 2. The portion that was allotted in the said partition suit to Ballabux Poddar is shown in the map attached to the final decoe of the said partition suit. Thereafter that Ballabux Poddar made certain family arrangement to avoid disputes and differences amount his sons. By terms of the said family arrangement the property described in Schedule 1 to the written statements, was allotted to Mahabir Prasad Poddar, the father of defendant No. 3 and other portion was allotted to Bindari Lal Poddar, father of the plaintiff belong the eldest son of Ballabux Poddar. The property allotted to Bindari Lal Poddar has been given in Schedule 2 to the written statement. The family arrangement was subsequently recorded in a document dated 24.2.1995, which was signed by Ballabux Poddar. Thus, the portion of land described in Schedule 1 to the written statement came in the exclusive ownership of Mahabir Prasad Poddar and the plaintiff had got no title over that portion. Any relation ship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant or the defendant being ever paid the rent was denied. The written statement was amended subsequently and it was added that Mahabir Prasad was the owner of the property and was given absolute right to use and enjoy and after his death to his heirs and legal representatives. It was further pleaded that at any rate the holding No. 773 was jointly held by four sons of Ballabux Poddar i.e. Bindari Lal Poddar, Mahabir Prasad Poddar, Gobind Ram Poddar and Sita Ram Poddar and as such the descendant of Mahabir Prasad Poddar are co-owners along with the plaintiff. Further case of the defendants was that Mahabir prasad Poddar on the request of his eldest son Bindari Lal Poddar permitted the latter to use to premises on the front portion of the building only for a temporary period and therefore, Bindari Lal Poddar again handed over the same to Mahesh Kumar Poddar, Schedule 1. Further case of the defendants was that Mahabir prasad Poddar on the request of his eldest son Bindari Lal Poddar permitted the latter to use to premises on the front portion of the building only for a temporary period and therefore, Bindari Lal Poddar again handed over the same to Mahesh Kumar Poddar, Schedule 1. Property falls in M.S. Plot No. 623 bearing Holding No. 773 Ward No. II, Ranchi Municipality, Ranchi, situated in Upper Bazar, Marwari Tola, Ranchi, butted and bounded as follows : North : Shop of Banarasi Devi Poddar, Siya Ram Sao, and Bachh Raj Poddar, South Bodh Bihar Electric Agency, East : Road and Banarasi Devi Poddar and West Bindari Lal Poddar and Siya Ram Sao. 4. At the time of hearing of this appeal written statement was again allowed to be amended without objection by LA. No. 2069 of 2003 to the following extent : "3. That the learned trial Court had framed issue No. 5 regarding existence of relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties and while deciding such issue held in para 7 of this judgment as follows : Thus, in view of the above discussion, I came to the conclusion that from the admission of the plaintiff and the documents, it is clear the there had been no partition and the defendants are not the tenant rather co-owner of the suit premises and they are occupying the suit premise of their share. Thus, I find and hold that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants." 5. Two I. As were filed at the time when this second appeal was being heard. These were LA. No. 2068 of 2003 and LA. No. 2069 of 2003. By first LA. No. 2068 of 2003, filed under Order XIL, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure a prayer was made for making the plaint of Partition Suit No. 189 of 2000 filed by the respondent an exhibit. That partition suit was filed in respect of the many lands including the suit premises. It was also argued by the appellants that as that partition suit was filed in the year 2000 during the pendency of the trial of first appeal or even after the filing of the second appeal the appellants had no knowledge of this document. That partition suit was filed in respect of the many lands including the suit premises. It was also argued by the appellants that as that partition suit was filed in the year 2000 during the pendency of the trial of first appeal or even after the filing of the second appeal the appellants had no knowledge of this document. It is found that suit in hand was filed in the year 1988 and the second appeal was filed in the 1998. Obvious it is that the aforesaid suit was filed in the year 2000 and it was not within the knowledge of the appellants at the time of filing of this second appeal and accordingly, the plaint of that partition suit was marked as Ext. G in this appeal. 6. The main issue before the learned trial Court was whether there was relation ship of landlord and tenant in between the parties? The leaned trial Court considered the evidence adduced by both the sides including that of the expert, the rent receipts produced by the respondents and on the basis of certain admission made by the plaintiff that the property was given to his grand father in partition suit and there were four sons of his grand father who are Bindari Lal Poddar, Mahabir Prasad Poddar, Gobind Ram Poddar and Sita Ram Poddar and it was also his further admission in cross-examination that no partition had taken place among the grand father and his father and his co-sharers and the plaintiff relied upon Ext. 6, certified copy of the Partition Suit No. 36 of 1975 and it is also found that the aforesaid Partition Suit No. 36 of 1975 was filed by Shree Mahabir Prasad Poddar and in that suit it was alleged that the property bearing holding No. 773/507 situated at Marwari Tola Upper Bazar Ranchi town, police station Kotwali District Ranchi is joint property. On consideration of these admissions the learned trial Court had come to a finding that the defendants were co-owner of the suit property and as there has been no partition so, defendants were not the tenant rather co-owner of the suit premises and as such, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. Consequently the suit was dismissed. 7. Consequently the suit was dismissed. 7. The learned appellate Court examined this issue again along with many other issue, whether the plaintiff-appellants-respondents are landlord of the suit premises within the meaning of B.B (L.R.E.) Control Act. This point was Issue No. 5 before the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court took into consideration the definition of landlord and tenant and relying on AIR 1979 Cal 135 wherein it is held that Tenancy is respect of undivided share can be created by a co-sharer in favour of undivided share" provided that the tenancy in respect of the part of a building, such part must be demarcated by meets and out. The learned appellate Court found that the suit premises was a shop well separated from all four corners from wall and gate for entry and exit from the shop and when the gate is closed the shop that "Co-owners are legally competent to come to any kind of arrangement for the enjoyment of that undivided property and are to lay down any terms concerning the enjoyment of the property". Thereafter, the learned appellate Court scrutinized the documentary evidence Exhibits 3 to 3/a, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 4(a), Exhibit 5, Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 3/b and found that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of suit premises in which he was earlier dealing in two business, firstly the business of cloth in the name and style of Santosh Vastralya and secondly of a hotel. The learned appellate Court considering the Exhibit 3 series found that the plaintiff was paying rent to municipality and was recognized as holder of holding. It considered the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 and came to find that the plaintiff was in possession of partition as share in the property as co-sharer which was separate from rest of the property and the plaintiff let out the suit premises to the defendants the defendants paid rent to the plaintiffs and as such held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. 8. As there is a case of reversal of the trial Court judgment and decree, it is necessary to look to fact that came in evidence before going to answer the question. Evidence on admission : The plaintiff was examined in this case as PW 8. 8. As there is a case of reversal of the trial Court judgment and decree, it is necessary to look to fact that came in evidence before going to answer the question. Evidence on admission : The plaintiff was examined in this case as PW 8. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination he says that whatever property he had that is of his grand father and the grand father had four sons and at no time there has been any partition in between the sons of his grand father and all the sons and the grand father always remained joint, though there was a partition between the grand father and his brother. After the death of grand father all his four sons are living joint, who are late Bindari Lal Poddar, late Mahabir Prasad Poddar, Gobind Lal Poddar and Sita Ram Poddar and he is the son of the Bindari Lal Poddar and the defendants are sons of Mahabir Prasad Poddar. In paragraph 11 he says that Bindari Lal Poddar had purchased the land in holding No. 915 in the name of plaintiffs mother on that holding he has got the possession. In paragraph 15 he says that 772 and 773 are two municipal holdings but the Plot Nos. is same, and these two municipal holdings were belonging to his grand father and his brother earlier and after the partition between them these plots were allotted to his grand father. In paragraph 21 he says that in the register of municipality the land is in the name of Balabux Poddar, but in the column of rent payer his name is there Ext. 3/b. This receipt was issued in the year 1989 (during the pendency of the suit) and is in the name of wife of Balabux. In this the name of plaintiff as rent payer is not mentioned. He also says that in holding No. 915 where Mahesh and others reside he also has got share. He had admitted that the contents made in the petition (this petition has been marked Ext. 6) filed by Mahabir Prasad Poddar are true. He has further emphasized that he admits the contents made in that petition though he denied in paragraph 3 that Balabux Poddar had made any family arrangement during his life time. He had admitted that the contents made in the petition (this petition has been marked Ext. 6) filed by Mahabir Prasad Poddar are true. He has further emphasized that he admits the contents made in that petition though he denied in paragraph 3 that Balabux Poddar had made any family arrangement during his life time. He did not accept the suggestion of defendants that Balabux Poddar by a family arrangement had given the disputed land to Mahabir Prasad Poddar. Again in paragraph 25 he says that there has been a partition in between himself and his four brothers and the holding No. 773 along with entire house came in his share. Thus from the aforesaid evidence of the plaintiff, it is clear that there was a partition only between his grand father and grand fathers brother but there was no partition in between the grand father and his descendant. He also admits the correctness of the statements made in Ext. 6, though in paragraph 25 he made out a claim of further partition in between him and his four brothers and holding No. 773 along with entire house standing over it came in his share. But that claim is not proved, Thus, from his evidence itself, it is apparent that there was no partition of the property that fell in the share of his grad father. 9. Now I come to Ext. 6. This is a certified copy of the plaint of Partition Suit No. 36 of 1975, in which Shree Mahabir Prasad Poddar was the plaintiff and widow and sons of late Bindari Lal Poddar and two sons of Balabux Poddar were the defendants. This plaintiff- appellant-respondents is the son of Bindari Lal Poddar. It is necessary to give the undisputed genealogy, which is as follows : Balabux Poddar -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- | | | | Bidari Lal Poddar Mahabir Prasad Poddar Govind Ram Poddar Si ta Ram Poddar | |----------------------------------| Raj Kumar Poddar Mahesh Kumar Poddar Hemant Kumar Poddar (Def. No. 3) | Smt. Saroj Devi Poddar (Def. No. 2) From the contents of Ext. 6 it appears that finding it inconvenient to keep the entire property joint for longer period, the plaintiff approached the defendants for amicable partition but for some reason or the other the defendants refused, hence, the suit was filed. The plaintiff of the suit (Ext. No. 3) | Smt. Saroj Devi Poddar (Def. No. 2) From the contents of Ext. 6 it appears that finding it inconvenient to keep the entire property joint for longer period, the plaintiff approached the defendants for amicable partition but for some reason or the other the defendants refused, hence, the suit was filed. The plaintiff of the suit (Ext. 6) claims 1/4 share in the suit properties and, therefore, the suit properties included in that suit for partition was described in four items. Items. Item No. 1.- 1. Pucca makan new holding No. 773/507 situated at Marwari Tola Upper Bazar Ranehi Town, P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi. 2. Land situate outside the Gowshala, bearing Municipal Plot No. 794 out of it sub-plot Nos. 2,11, Municipal holding No. 678 of Ward No. II of the Ranchi Town, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 3. House at Hindipiri in the town of Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, bearing, new holding No. 1312 of Ward No. 111 of the Ranchi Municipality. Item No. II.-1. Pucca makan situate at Upper Bazar in the town of Ranchi P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, bearing Municipal Plot No. 915 new holding No. (not given) of Ward No. 1 of the Marwari Tola Upper Bazar, Ranchi. 2. Gola at Upper Bazar Market Road Ranchi bearing Municipal Holding No. 1334 of Ward No. II of the Ranchi Municipality, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. N.B. Defendant No. I is the firm. 3. Two pieces of land outside Goshala within Municipal Survey Plot No. 794 sub-plot No. 7, 14 of Ward II of the Ranchi Municipality situated at Goshala Road, Upper Bazar in the town of Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4. Shop at Upper Bazar in the town of Ranchi, P.Is. Kotwali District Ranchi, bearing holding No. 770/505-A of Ward No. II of the Ranchi Municipality. 5. Land at Upper Bazar Sardhanand Road bearing Municipal Holding No. 1248 of Ward No. 1, P.O. Kotwali, District Ranchi. Item No. III.---1. PuccaHouse at main road in front of Gurudwara at Lower Bazar in the town of Ranchi bewaring Municipal Holding No. 331 of Ward No. III of the Ranchi Municipality, RS. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 2. Gola at Market Road, Ranchi Upper Bazar. P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, bearing Municipal Holding No. 1340 of Ward No. II and the land behind it. 3. PuccaHouse at main road in front of Gurudwara at Lower Bazar in the town of Ranchi bewaring Municipal Holding No. 331 of Ward No. III of the Ranchi Municipality, RS. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 2. Gola at Market Road, Ranchi Upper Bazar. P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, bearing Municipal Holding No. 1340 of Ward No. II and the land behind it. 3. Land at North Market Road at Upper Bazar in the town of Ranchi P.S. Kotwali District Ranchi bearing Municipal holding No. 1339 of Ward No. II. 4. Don land at Jalan Road Plot No. 173-B being part of Plot No. 170, 169 of Ward No. II of the Ranchi Municipality situate at Upper Bazar Jalan Road in the town of Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 5. The land situated at North Market Road Upper Bazar in the town of Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. being Plot No. 170 (P) of Ward No. II of the Ranchi Municipality. 6. Land .06 Decimals out of Plot No. 183 situated at Upper Bazar in the town of Ranchi P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, of Ward No. II of the Ranchi Municipality. Item No. IV.-1. Khaparaposh House situate at Khunti P.S. District Ranchi, bearing Plot No. 314, Khewat No. 3, Thana No. 83 area being 23 decimals. 2. Don land of village Bhargaon Pergana Korambe Thana Lohardaga (now Senha) thana No. 128 District Ranchi. 3. Pucca House, one storeyed consisting of two shops at Main Road before Ranchi Sadar Hospital in the town of Ranchi bearing Municipal Holding No. 824 of Ward No. II of the Ranchi Municipality Ranchi, police station Kotwali District Ranchi. 10. This suit for partition (Ext. 6) includes many properties but the suit land as contained in Schedule A to the plaint does not find any where, mentioned of Plot No. 623 of holding No. 773 as identified by the boundary (supra). In item No. 1 of Ext. 6, one of the partition is pucca makan new holding No. 773/507 situated at Marwari Tola Upper Bazar Ranchi town RS. Kotwali District Ranchi. The suit land is described as a shop standing over portion of M.S. Plot No. 623 being portion of holding No. 773, Ward No. 2 situated at Marwari Tola Upper Bazar, police station Kotwali, District Ranchi. Thus it appears that the land involved in Ext. Kotwali District Ranchi. The suit land is described as a shop standing over portion of M.S. Plot No. 623 being portion of holding No. 773, Ward No. 2 situated at Marwari Tola Upper Bazar, police station Kotwali, District Ranchi. Thus it appears that the land involved in Ext. 6 and the land mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint are identified in respect of holding number and location but Ext. 6 does give the boundary. The lands mentioned in Schedule 1 of the written statement are Municipal Plot No. 623 bearing holding 773, Ward No. II, Ranchi Municipality Raachi, situated in Upper Bazar, Marwari Tola, Ranchi identified by the boundaries mentioned in Schedule 1. Though it is claimed by the defendants as exclusive owner and possession and Schedule II of the written statement is the another part of the same holding. This mens that in part of the same M.S. Plot and holding the defendant is admitting possession. He is not declaring possession over the other part of the said plot and holding, and defendant is silent above it. This means that the Schedules I and II properties are the part of same plot are admittedly the possession of defendants the other in possession of plaintiff. 11. Now the question is if the possession is admitted then whether third is as a tenant or on account of family arrangement in 1945. The defendant in para 14 of written statement has admitted that this family arrangement was subsequently recorded. Obviously this family arrangement is not a deed of partition rather a memorandum of partition. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that as it was not produced earlier, and it is not stamped and registered it cannot be relied upon and should be excluded from evidence as being suspicious. 12. DW 6 is the husband of defendant No. 2. In the year 1990 when he was examined as witness he was aged about 40 years which means that he was born in some time in or around the 1945. In his examination in chief in paragraph 1 he says that he had got the disputed land in the year 1945 under the family arrangement. In the year 1990 when he was examined as witness he was aged about 40 years which means that he was born in some time in or around the 1945. In his examination in chief in paragraph 1 he says that he had got the disputed land in the year 1945 under the family arrangement. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination he says that he does not throw any light that this was a paper of family arrangement in which there is some mention about the disputed shop as also some land. Because of his having been born some time in or around the year 1945 he cannot be a witness to that paper which was made in the year 1945. DW 7 is his son and he says that in the year 1945 Balabux Poddar had given this paper Ext. A to his father. Meaning thereby that this document has been produced from his custody and this paper was handed over to him by his father. Again he says that he does not remember that when this paper was given to him by his father. He also admits that he is an assessee of income-tax but he has not given account of income-tax and he has also produced the paper for the first time in the Court. He has also not used that paper for mutation or for mutation in municipality office. He admits that in that paper Ext. A, there is no mention of other land of his grand father, though his grand father held a lot of properties. Form the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that as DW 6 himself was born in or about 1945 then the question of delivering of Ext. A to him by his grand father at that particular time is quite improbable. It is also clear that at no other forum that document was used and ultimately it has been produced for the first time in the present suit. In the aforesaid situation agreeing with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and AIR 1930 Pat it is held that this document is a document that cannot be considered without suspicion and hence, no reliance can be placed upon such a document. In the aforesaid view the claim of the defendants that the said land was given to him under family arrangement collapses. 13. In the aforesaid view the claim of the defendants that the said land was given to him under family arrangement collapses. 13. All the evidence taken together with the admission of the plaintiff that no partition had taken place, go to show that there was no partition and claim of possession of the defendant on the basis of Ext. A is not acceptable. 14. The question now is that if the possession is not on the basis of partition then which is the nature of possession? How defendant is in possession? There are two versions are of the plaintiff according to which the defendant is tenant and according to the defendant he is in possession on the basis of partition. The onus of proving the possession on the basis of partition/ family arrangement having not been discharged, the plaintiff version remains. 15. The plaintiff had proved the Ext. 4 license for running hotel, Ext. 5, weekly closure notice, Ext 4/a Registration under Shop and Establishment Act read with the oral evidence of payment of rent, thought not very satisfactory but the preponderance of evidence read with the admission of possession without proving of partition by the defendants leads to an inference that defendant was a tenant and the plaintiff was the landlord. 16. The learned appellate Court rightly placed his reliance on AIR 1979 Cal 135 . Had the defendant claimed possession on the basis of Ext. A, rather would have pleaded joint possession then in this circumstance the ratio of that case would have been inapplicable. 17. So when the basis of exclusive possession of defendants fails and the land forms the part of building separate from that of the plaintiff and preponderance of evidence shows that the plaintiff and defendant are co-parcenar a tenancy can be created AIR 1969 SC 109 is not applicable in such a situation. 18. Now the answer to the substantial questions : Question (A).-The appellate Court has not acted only on oral evidence, it has considered the document and appreciated them properly. This question is thus answered in negative and against the appellants. Question (B),-The admission of the plaintiff in evidence and the admission of the defendant in W.S. and Ext. 6 is that the defendant fails to prove his possession over the suit land on the basis of family arrangement consequently the other version regarding possession has to be accepted. This question is thus answered in negative and against the appellants. Question (B),-The admission of the plaintiff in evidence and the admission of the defendant in W.S. and Ext. 6 is that the defendant fails to prove his possession over the suit land on the basis of family arrangement consequently the other version regarding possession has to be accepted. Court cannot create a third case. The learned appellate Court was justified in holding a relationship of landlord and tenant. This question is answered accordingly and against the appellants. Question (C).-Yes in view of the answer to question and AIR 1979 Cal 135 , the suit for ejectment under B.B.C. Act is maintainable. The question is answered accordingly as against the appellants. Question (D).---The family arrangement, made subsequent to some portion does not require registration but for the reason discussed, it is a document not free from suspicion and cannot be used as evidence of possession on the basis of such family arrangement. The question is answered accordingly. 19. In the result this S.A. fails. The appellate Courts judgment and decree is confirmed on contest. Appellants to pay cost, Advocate fee Rs. 250/-.