JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The estate of one Abida Khatun, fell, on her demise, hence open for succession. Abida Khatun died on 4.10.2009. On occurrence of her demise, a suit was preferred by the co-plaintiffs against the sole defendant (the husband of the deceased Abida Khatun), wherein, the plaintiffs claimed rendition of a declaratory decree for exclusivity of succession/inheritance, to the movable besides immovable assets of deceased Abida Khatun. Moreover, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was claimed to be pronounced for restraining the defendant either through himself or through his agents, servants, assignees etc., from claiming or receiving the assets of deceased Abida Khatun beyond his ½ share. The plaintiffs' suit, was partly decreed with respect to the movable assets of deceased Abida Khatun, whereas, it was dismissed in respect of the immovable assets of deceased Abida Khatun, given the latter not proven to, during her life time, own any immovable assets. The declaratory decree pronounced by the learned trial Court held deceased plaintiff No.1 being entitled to 1/3rd share and co-plaintiff No.2 being entitled to 1/6th share, in, the movable assets of deceased Abida Khatun. Moreover, a decree of permanent injunction was pronounced, whereby, the sole defendant was restrained from claiming and receiving, beyond his share, pecuniary benefits in the movable assets of deceased Abida Khatun. The judgment and decree was challenged by the aggrieved before the learned First Appellate Court, whereupon, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereas, it affirmed the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved therefrom, the defendant/appellant herein concerts to assail, it, by preferring an appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the daughter of the plaintiffs, namely, Smt. Abida Khatun got married to defendant according Mohammedan rituals but they had not issue out of this wedlock. She worked as a teacher in Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Nahan. She got breast cancer, as a result of which, she was admitted in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre and the entire medical expenses were borne by plaintiffs. The defendant did not pay even a single penny as he did not earn anything. It is averred that plaintiff Habib Ahmed was entitled to 1/3rd share and plaintiff Sarwari Begum was entitled to 1/6th share in the property/service benefits/policies of their deceased daughter Abida Khatun, who had no issue. The defendant did not pay even a single penny as he did not earn anything. It is averred that plaintiff Habib Ahmed was entitled to 1/3rd share and plaintiff Sarwari Begum was entitled to 1/6th share in the property/service benefits/policies of their deceased daughter Abida Khatun, who had no issue. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to give their share as per Sunny Law of inheritance but defendant proclaimed himself to be sole legal heir of late Abida Khatun and denied the claim of the plaintiffs. Hence, the present suit seeking share in the property/service benefits/policies of Abida Khatun was filed by the plaintiffs. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, suppression of material facts, lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, non joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, estoppel, cause of action. On merits, it is admitted that Smt. Abida Khatun had married defendant and she was working as a teacher. It was also admitted that she died on 30.09.2009 due to cancer. It was denied that medical expenses were borne by the plaintiffs and it was averred that plaintiffs never attended their daughter while she was suffering from ailment. It was also averred that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the property/other service benefits/policies. It was also averred that law of inheritance would not be applicable in the present case due to application of service law. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/appellant herein, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 being father and mother of deceased Abida Khatun are legally entitled to claim inheritance of the property left behind by deceased Abida Khatun, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are also entitled to consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and effect thereof? OPD 5. Whether this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, as alleged? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and effect thereof? OPD 5. Whether this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present suit? OPD. 10. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, in the manner aforestated, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/appellant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, wherein, he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 18.12.2013, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether there is mis-reading of pleadings and evidence available on record and on that account, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are vitiated and the impugned judgment and decree being perverse is not legally and factually sustainable? 2. Whether the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and on that account, the impugned judgment and decree is vitiated and is not legally sustainable? Substantial question of Law No.1. 8. During the course, of, hearing of the instant appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that he would not be pressing for an adjudication being rendered upon substantial question of law No.1, hence, substantial question of law No.1 is answered as not pressed. Substantial question of law No.2. 9. Substantial question of Law No.1. 8. During the course, of, hearing of the instant appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that he would not be pressing for an adjudication being rendered upon substantial question of law No.1, hence, substantial question of law No.1 is answered as not pressed. Substantial question of law No.2. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant has contended with vigour, that the co-plaintiffs' suit for a declaratory decree being pronounced with respect to their proportionate respective entitlements vis-a-vis the movable assets of deceased Abida Khatun, being not, properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, thereupon, the concurrently recorded verdicts, rendered by both the learned Courts below hence deserving reversal. He contends that ad valorem court fees, in proportion vis-avis the legitimate entitlements of the plaintiffs in the movable assets of deceased Abida Khatun, was enjoined to be affixed upon the plaint, whereas, the co-plaintiffs affixing thereon, a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- in respect of the apposite declaratory decree, enjoined the learned Courts below to non suit the plaintiffs. 10. The contention aforesaid deserves to be outrightly rejected, as the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant herein, in making the aforesaid espousal, has inaptly misconstrued the declaratory decree claimed in the instant plaint to be a declaratory decree for recoveries of money. Contrarily, the extant suit is rather to be aptly construed, to be, not a suit for recovery of moneys, given rendition of a decree for recovery of moneys from the defendant, peremptorily enjoining, (I) satisfaction of the trite condition, of, the plaintiffs concerned averring besides satisfactorily proving, of, the defendant or deceased Abida Khatun, respectively during their life times borrowing sums of money, from them. (ii) However, the aforesaid pleadings are neither set up nor evidence in respect thereto stands adduced. (ii) However, the aforesaid pleadings are neither set up nor evidence in respect thereto stands adduced. (iii) Thereupon, the movable assets of deceased Abida Khatun, in respect whereof, the plaintiffs being her parents, are, entitled to in proportion, to, their legitimate shares therein, hence, succeed thereto, thereupon, they, cannot, be construed to be seeking a declaratory decree for recoveries of money from deceased Abida Khatun or from the defendant, (iv) concomitantly, the extant suit cannot be construed to be suit, for, rendition of a declaratory decree for recoveries of sums of money from Abida Khatun or from the defendant, emphatically when, it is neither averred nor proved, that during her life time sums of money constituted in the plaint, were borrowed by the aforesaid deceased Abida Khatun from the co-plaintiffs. In sequel, there was no enjoined imperative necessity cast upon the plaintiffs, to, upon the plaint, affix court fee ad valorem vis-a-vis their legitimate entitlements vis-a-vis the movable assets of deceased Abida Khatun. Entitlements to the apt movable assets, left behind by deceased Abida Khatun, are, obviously accruable, on occurrence of her demise, thereupon with there not existing any pointed provision in the apposite statute appertaining to affixation upon the plaint, of court fee ad valorem vis-avis the movable or immovable properties of the deceased concerned, begets, an inference that if the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant that for want of affixation upon the plaint, of court fee ad valorem vis-a-vis the sums of money falling to the share of the co-plaintiffs, the learned trial Courts below being enjoined to non suit the plaintiffs is accepted, it would tantamount to this Court unlawfully enjoining upon the plaintiffs concerned, who, on demise of their predecessor-in-interest, claim, succession and inheritance to her estate, to hence, affix upon the plaint court fee ad valorem vis-a-vis their entitlements in the movable besides immovable assets of deceased Abida Khatun. In aftermath, the aforesaid contention is rejected. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, the substantial question of law No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendant/appellant. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgments and decrees are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.