ORDER 1. Appellants/original defendants No. 1 to 5 have filed this second appeal under section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2017 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in regular Civil Appeal No. 500025/14, whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2014 passed by the Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 17A/2013 was reversed. 2. The trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/present respondents No. 1 to 6 for declaration of title regarding their 2/9 share in the disputed agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 85,86,95,96 and 99 of village Bharka, Tehsil and District Shivpuri and for a perpetual injunction against the defendants, but the lower appellate Court has decreed the plaintiffs' suit. 3. Original plaintiffs, who were LRs of the two real brothers Maharaj Singh and Lalaram, resident of village Bharka filed suit on pleadings that the plaintiffs and original defendants No. 6 to 17 are owners and possession holders of the suit lands. The great grandfather of the plaintiffs, Paramsukh was real brother of Nathua and each bro ther was having 1/9 share in the disputed lands. After the death of Paramsukh, his son Goda and after the death of Goda his son Shreelal became title holders of his share and after the death of Shreelal plaintiffs are their successors. It was also pleaded that the above mentioned Nathua was having sole son named Salka, who died unmarried and issueless, hence in the absence of any heirs of Salka, s/o Nathua, plaintiffs being sons of Salka's real uncle Paramsukh became owners and possession holders of the share of Salka in the disputed land, hence after the dearth of Salka, plaintiffs' share in the disputed lands became 2/9. Original defendants No. 1 to 4 are sons of Mishrilal Kirar, all resident of village Aakursi, Tehsil Pohri, District Shivpuri and the father of the above mentioned defendants, Mishrilal was having a real brother Bhagwanlal, who were sons of Salka, s/o Rajaram, r/o Aakursi, but the defendants No. 1 to 4 (Dharamveer, Aasharam, Om Prakash and Mahesh) got their mutation in revenue records by conspiracy with relating Patwari and Secretary of the relating Gram Panchayat, Jamkho showing them successors of Salka, s/o Nathua's share and got their mutation in the revenue records over 1/9 share in the disputed lands and thereafter sold the relating land to defendant No. 5 Smt. Triveni Giri vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.2010. Such mutation and sale deed are totally illegal and void. On 19.2.2011, defendant No. 5 Smt. Triveni with defendants No. 1 to 4 threatened plaintiffs to dispossess from the disputed lands. Thereafter, plaintiffs got certified copy of the revenue records, then they became aware of the conspiracy and illegal proceedings committed by defendants No. 1 to 5. Plaintiffs did not seek any relief against defendants No. 6 to 18. 4. Defendants No. 1 to 4 in their joint written statement filed before the trial Court denying all the adverse pleadings of the plaintiffs, pleaded that actually alleged Paramsukh and Nathua were not real brothers and Salka, s/o Nathua alias Rajaram was originally resident of village Aakursi, who was grandfather of defendants No. 1 to 4, hence, defendants No. 1 to 4 were legal heirs of Salka, s/o Nathua alias Rajaram's share in suit lands. It has been pleaded by the defendants that Salka, s/o Nathua and Salka, s/o Rajaram were not different persons, but he was a single man as his father Rajaram's another name was Nathua and the relating Gram Panchayat had ordered for their mutation over 1/9 share of Salka in accordance with law and these defendants have sold their share legally to defendant No. 5. It was specifically pleaded that plaintiffs' grandfather Paramsukh was not having any real brother named Nathua, whereas the grandfather of defendants No. 1 to 4 named Salka, s/o Nathua alias Rajaram was erstwhile zamindar of the village Bharka and was having other agricultural lands also in village Bharka, besides suit land. Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief hence, dismissal of the suit was prayed. 5. Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief hence, dismissal of the suit was prayed. 5. Defendants No. 5 Smt. Triveni by her separate written statement repeated the pleadings of original defendants No. 1 to 4. 6. Defendants No. 6, 12 and 13 by their separately filed joint written statement pleaded that plaintiffs' great grandfather Paramsukh was having a real brother Nathua and plaintiffs are their legal heirs and Salka died unmarried and issue-less, hence plaintiffs are legal successors of Salka, s/o Nathua's share in suit lands and defendants No. 1 to 4 got their mutation over disputed lands illegally and fraudulently. 7. The trial Court framed issues on pleadings of the parties. Before the trial Court Khemraj (PW-1) and Ramcharan (PW-2) were examined for plaintiffs and documents Ex.P-1 to P-8 were exhibited as documentary evidence and Dharamveer Dhakad (DW-1), Smt. Triveni Giri (DW-2), Raghuveer (DW-3), Vanshi Yadav (DW-4) and Kamar Singh Dhakad (DW-5) were examined for the present appellants/defendants. Trial Court recorded its findings regarding framed issues that it was not proved that Salka, s/o late Nathua had died unmarried and without heirs; it was also not proved that plaintiffs are entitled for getting share of late Salka in suit lands as his legal heirs; it was also not proved that plaintiffs are entitled for getting perpetual injunction against the present appellants and consequently trial Court dismissed plaintiffs' suit. In regular appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and had found proved that the plaintiffs are title holders and possession holders of Salka, s/o Nathua's share in disputed agricultural lands and consequently it decreed the plaintiffs' suit and also set aside the mutation of defendants No. 1 to 4 over the disputed lands and issued perpetual injunction against the present appellants not to disturb in possession of plaintiffs. 8. Appearing counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the lower appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing plaintiffs' suit and it was rightly inferred by the trial Court that as plaintiffs remain unsuccessful in proving that their great grandfather Paramsukh was real brother of late Nathua, plaintiffs were not entitled for“5 Nathua or his son Salka's share in the disputed lands. It is also contended that as the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of trial Court, hence it is prayed that appeal filed by the appellants be admitted for hearing formulating proposed substantial questions of law by the appellants in their appeal memo. 9. Per contra, above mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by the plaintiffs' counsel on the ground that the trial Court has not properly and legally appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and the lower appellate Court has corrected the mistakes committed by the trial Court. It was also argued that no documentary evidence by the present appellants were filed before the trial Court to establish that another name of Nathua was Rajaram and Salka resident of village Aakursi was the son of Nathua, r/o village Bharka, whereas it was proved by the documentary evidence that Salka, s/o Nathua was resident of village Bharka only. 10. It is well settled that civil suits are decided on preponderance of probabilities and it is also well settled that when both parties led evidence before the trial Court, then the question of burden of proof became academic only. 11. Khemraj (PW-1), s/o Maharaj Singh deposed that the great grandfather of plaintiffs' Paramsukh was real brother of Nathua and each brother was having 1/9 share in the disputed lands and after the dearth of their father they became Bhoomiswami of their grandfather's share and Salka was the only son of late Nathua, who died unmarried and issue-less, hence plaintiffs' being sons of his uncle had also became Bhoomiswami and possession holder of the share of Salka, s/o Nathua. He clearly deposed that appellants No. 1 to 4 are sons of Salka, s/o Rajaram and they are having no relation with Salka, s/o Nathua, r/o Bharka, whereas above mentioned appellants are resident of village Aakursi and Salka, s/o Nathua and Salka, s/o Rajaram were two different persons living in different villages, but the defendants No. 1 to 4 after making conspiracy with relating Patwari, Sarpanch and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Jamkho got their names mutated in the revenue records and after getting their mutation they have sold relating share to present appellant No. 5 Smt. Tiveni Giri vide registered sale deed (Ex.P-8) dated 29.11.2010. He clearly deposed that his grandfather had stated that Salka had died about 50-55 years ago, but in revenue papers just after the death of Salka they have not tried for their mutation. 12. From certified copy of khasra of samvat 2018 to 2022 (Ex.P-3), it is clear that in the disputed land, Shreelal was having 1/9 share and similarly Salka, s/o Nathua was having 1/9 share. Plaintiffs' have also filed certified copies of various revenue records (Ex.P-5 to P-7) of village Aakursi to demonstrate the fact that in revenue records of various lands of village Aakursi name of Salka, s/o Rajaram was recorded with Bhagwanalal and Mishrilal. It is clear from the certified copy of khasra (Ex.P-6) for the year 1950 (samvat 2007) of village Aakursi that on lands of different survey numbers of village Aakursi name of Salka, s/o Rajaram Kirar, r/o village Aakursi was recorded as Co-Bhoomiswami. In another khasra copy of villge Aakursi (Ex.P-7) for the year Samvat 2017, name of Salka, s/o Rajaram was recorded on various lands of village Aakursi. From Ex.P-5 to P-7 relating to village Aakursi, it is clear that in these revenue papers name of Salka, s/o Rajaram, r/o village Aakursi is recorded as a Co-Bhoomiswami. In no any revenue record, the name of Salka's father is recorded as Nathua in relation to village Aakursi. Certified copy of the sale deed executed by appellants No. 1 to 4 in favour of appellant No. 5 is filed as Ex.P-8. 13. Much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the appellants on the fact that no documentary evidence was filed by the plaintiffs to establish the fact that their great grandfather Paramsukh was real brother of Nathua, but Ex.P-2 to P-4 clearly demonstrate that in disputed lands, 1/9 share was recorded in the name of Shreelal, who was predecessor of plaintiffs and 1/9 share was recorded in the name of Salka, s/o Nathua r/o village Bharka. 14. Ramcharan (PW-2) has clearly deposed in his evidence that he had seen Salka, s/o Nathua in his life time. He clearly deposed that Salka, r/o village Askursi was not having any land in village Bharka. 14. Ramcharan (PW-2) has clearly deposed in his evidence that he had seen Salka, s/o Nathua in his life time. He clearly deposed that Salka, r/o village Askursi was not having any land in village Bharka. Ramcharan deposed that he is a 60 years old man and Salka, s/o Nathua, r/o village Bharka and Salka, s/o Rajaram, r/o village Aakursi were totally different persons and present appellants No. 1 to 4 are grandsons of Salka, s/o Rajaram, r/o village Aakursi. He clearly deposed that plaintiffs are cultivating and having possession over the disputed land. He clearly deposed in cross-examination that Nathua was real brother of father of Shreelal. The lower Appellate Court has referred citation of Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdharilal Patil (AIR 1985 SC 1728) on this point. 15. It is significant to mention here that the present appellants No. 1 to 4 have clearly pleaded in their pleadings (joint written statement) that Salka, s/o Rajaram alias Nathua, r/o village Aakursi was erstwhile zamindar of the village Bharka and appellants are having other agricultural lands also in village Bharka, but present appellants have not filed any documentary evidence or copies of revenue records to demonstrate that Salka, s/o Rajaram r/o village Aakursi was having any agricultural land in village Bharka. Similarly, present appellants No. 1 to 4 have not filed any documentary evidence to demonstrate that they are having other agricultural land besides disputed lands in village Bharka, whereas the certified copies of revenue records filed and proved by the plaintiffs establishes that Salka, s/o Nathua, r/o village Bharka was a share holder of disputed land. Plaintiffs have not tried for their mutation in revenue records in place of Salka for many years but only due to this fact, it could not be inferred that they are not having any relation with Salka, s/o Nathua, whereas in absence of any documentary evidence for the appellants, it could not inferred that another name of Nathua, r/o village Bharka was Rajaram. 16. Dharamveer Dhakad (DW-1) had deposed that Salka, s/o Rajaram had expired about 80 years before his deposition and deposed that in village Bharka there was no person named Salka, but his evidence is rebutted by above mentioned revenue records. 16. Dharamveer Dhakad (DW-1) had deposed that Salka, s/o Rajaram had expired about 80 years before his deposition and deposed that in village Bharka there was no person named Salka, but his evidence is rebutted by above mentioned revenue records. Dharamveer deposed in cross-examination (para 11) that he had seen in zamindari records that the name of his grandfather Salka was recorded as Salka, s/o Rajaram alias Nathua, but he deposed in next breath that any such zamindari record has not been filed by him before the trial Court. In such facts and circumstances, adverse presumption against the present appellants should be drawn. 17. Smt. Triveni Giri, (DW-2), who is purchaser of the disputed land deposed in cross-examination that she had never seen Salka and admitted in para 9 that she did not know the name of father of Salka. 18. Raghuveer Dhakad (DW-3), Vanshi Yadav (DW-4) and Kamar Singh Dhakad (DW-5) have deposed that Gram Panchayat, Jamkho had mutated the names of present appellants No. 1 to 4 in revenue records in place of Salka, s/o Nathua, r/o Bharka in relation to disputed suit lands. Raghuveer (DW-3) deposed in para 6 that from Patwari, he had received information that in revenue records the father's name of Salka, r/o village Aakursi was recorded as Nathua, but no such revenue record has been filed and proved. He admitted in his cross-examination that in relation to lands inherited by appellants No. 1 to 4 in place of their father Salka, s/o Rajaram in relation to village Aakursi, names of three daughters and wife of Salka, s/o Rajaram have also been recorded in revenue papers, but it is surprising that in revenue records relating to village Bharka, the names of present appellants No. 1 to 4's mother and sisters were not recorded. Vanshi Yadav (DW-4) deposed that above mentioned Gram Panchayat made mutation of appellants No. 1 to 4, but he admitted in cross-examination that in relation to these mutation, none of village Bharka was intimated and no proclamation was affixed in village Bharka regarding proposed mutation and no beating of drum was heard in village Bharka regarding mutation of appellants No. 1 to 4 to suit lands. 19. 19. Kamar Singh Dhakad (DW-5), r/o village Jamkho has clearly deposed in cross-examination that he is having no information regarding father of Salka, as he is much younger and he is having no knowledge that how and when mutation of appellants No. 1 to 4 was made by the relating Gram Panchayat. 20. Present appellants have not filed any documentary evidence in relation to mutation of appellants No. 1 to 4 over the disputed lands of village Bharka, hence the lower appellate Court rightly concluded that without any intimation to other co-owners of the disputed land, the names of appellants No. 1 to 4 were got mutated in revenue records secretly by the appellants. The evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses was supported by the documentary evidence. It is clear that the trial Court erred in ignoring the oral evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses supported by documentary evidence. Relationship of Paramsukh with Nathua was established by oral evidence and in the light of above mentioned referred citation, due to corroboration by documentary evidence, lower appellate Court has rightly concluded that it was proved that Paramsukh was real brother of Nathua, r/o Bharka. Late mutation of appellants No. 1 to 4 also appears to be suspicious. It is also material that original defendants No. 6, 12 and 13 by their joint written statement filed before the trial Court have supported and admitted the pleadings of plaintiffs, who are also co-owners of the suit land. 21. This Court is of the considered view that the lower appellate Court being final Court of facts has properly and legally appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and had not committed any error in decreeing plaintiffs' suit. Second appeal could not be admitted only because the lower appellate Court has reversed the decree passed by the trial Court. I am of the considered view that this second appeal does not involve any question of law rather than substantial question of law. 22. Consequently, this second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage. No order as to costs.