JUDGMENT : Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.:- 1. This Civil 2nd Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 13.08.2013 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge in an appeal titled Mst. Mymoona v. Mehraj-ud-din Ganie and Ors. 2. Civil Original suit was instituted by the appellants/their predecessors in interest in which they prayed that a decree for declaration be passed in their favour and against the defendants and it be declared that defendants are only entitled to share of 39 kanals and 4 marlas out of Khewat No. 38 measuring 117 kanals and 17 marlas. It was also prayed that the decree dated 13.09.1986 passed by the court of Additional District Judge be declared to be invalid and unlawful to the extent of 19 kanals and 10 marlas of land. Further the decree of permanent injunction was also sought in the plaint. 3. In the plaint it has been admitted that respondents were entitled to 1/3rd share of 39 kanals and 6 marlas in Khewat No. 38. 4. The suit was decreed by the trial court. However, the appellate court set aside the decree and judgment. 5. Mr. M. Sultan, learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the original plaint filed by Mst. Ashmi stated that all co sharers were not impleaded as party defendants and in the suit reference was made to the land measuring 118 kanals and 2 marlas comprising of Khewat No. 37-38. 6. The suit was inter se the legal heirs of Sultan Ganie. Mst. Ashmi had sought her share in the property left by Sultan Ganie, who was her father. The court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar vide its decree and judgment dated 13.09.1986 directed for framing of a preliminary decree for partition of property to the extent of the share of plaintiff measuring 19 kanals and 10 marlas. This share of 19 kanals and 10 marlas has been carved out of 39 kanals and 6 marlas, which as per admission of the appellants themselves fell to the share of Sultan Ganie and thereafter to his legal heirs. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Mst. Ashmi was not entitled to get share of 19 kanals and 10 marlas of land and in terms of the Muslim Personal Law she should be entitled to 6 kanals. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Mst. Ashmi was not entitled to get share of 19 kanals and 10 marlas of land and in terms of the Muslim Personal Law she should be entitled to 6 kanals. 8. It is not the case of the appellants that by passing impugned decree in respect of 19 kanals and 10 marlas in a suit which was inter se between the heirs of Sultan Ganie, any share in the land was affected. The only issue is that she was to get 6 kanals of land and not 19 kanals and 10 marlas. 9. The suit which was filed on the basis of these submissions was misconceived. Admittedly, the legal rights of the appellants vis-à-vis their share of land was not affected by the decree of the court dated 13.09.1986. The decree passed in the year 1986 was passed on the basis of suit in which the heirs of Sultan Ganie were contesting against each other. The trial court in the suit has decreed the suit of plaintiff therein in respect of the land measuring 19 kanals and 10 marlas from out of land measuring 39 kanals and 6 marlas, which admittedly fell to the share of Sultan Ganie. 10. In these factual circumstances none of the legal rights of the petitioners were infringed by the decree dated 13.09.1986. 11. In this backdrop and after considering the entire material it is found that no substantial question of law is involved in this Civil 2nd Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed along with CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 12. Record of trial court be send back.