ORDER 1. This appeal under section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by defendants No.1 to 10 against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.2022 passed in RCA No. 139/2019 by the Ist Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2019 passed in RCS No.3/2018 by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-I Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh. 2. The purpose of understating the dispute between the parties their genealogical tree is material which is as under: Kaniram (Dead) Dalibai (Dead) Bhanwarlal (Defendant No.1) Balram (dead) Jairam (dead) Bhawaribai (02) Manobai (P1) Ghanshyam (P2) Guddibai (P5) Priya (P8) Babloo (P3) Rajkumar (P6) Abhishek (P9) Basantibai (P4) Sapna (P7) Chandansingh (Def 3) Gyarshibai (Def 4) Dalibai (Def 5) Suganabai (Def 6) Bhagoabai (Def 7) Chhotibai (Def 8) Kallobai (Def 9) Bhuribai (Def 10) 3. The plaintiffs, heirs of deceased Jairam, instituted an action for declaration, partition and delivery of separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the suit lands. They submitted that the suit lands are ancestral lands of the parties but their proceedings for partition in respect of the same have been illegally dismissed by the revenue Courts who have directed them to approach the Civil Court in view of dispute as regards title. It was submitted that upon death of Kaniram, his son Jairam and after him the plaintiffs have 1/3rd share in the suit lands but defendants have been illegally recorded over 3/4th of the same. 4. The defendants contested the plaintiffs’ claim by filing their written statement generally denying all the pleas as raised by plaintiffs therein and submitted that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the same. 5. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim upon holding that they have not adduced any evidence to show as to whether Jairam is presently alive or not hence the shares of the parties cannot be worked out and declared. The said judgment and decree has been reversed in appeal preferred by plaintiffs by holding that heirs of Bhanwarlal would be having 1/3rd share, heirs of Balram would be having 1/3rd share and plaintiffs would be having 1/4th share in the suit lands as heirs of Jairam and plaintiff Ghanshyam, Babloo and Basantibai shall have equal shares in the remaining 1/12th share. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is illegal and contrary to law. The same has been passed in utter violation of Rule 2 of section 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It has been illegally held that 1/4th share of Dalibai will be divided equally among her son Bhawarlal, Balram and heirs of deceased son Jairam. The share of deceased Dalibai would have to be equally divided into three shares and not twelve shares as has been held. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. 8. Section 15 & 16 of Hindu Succession Act are as under : 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.— (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,— (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),— (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in subsection (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. 16. 16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.—The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestates property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:— Rule 1.—Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Rule 2.—If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate’s death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate’s death. Rule 3.—The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) to section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death. 9. From the pleadings of the parties and the material on record, it is an admitted fact that Dalibai died subsequent to Kaniram and Kaniram was the original owner of the suit lands. Thus upon his death his widow Dalibai and all his three sons namely Bhawarlal, Balram and Jairam inherited 1/4th share each in the suit lands. If it is presumed that Jairam had already expired at the time of death of Kaniram, then his 1/4th share in the suit lands would be inherited by his sons and daughters being his Class-I heirs under the Act, 1956. Share of Jairam and/or his heirs, the plaintiffs, over 1/4th share in the suit lands thus stood crystallized upon death of Kaniram. 10. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that Jairam has expired which fact has not been denied by defendants in any manner hence there is no reason to hold otherwise. Upon death of Dalibai her 1/4th share in the suit lands would devolve as per section 15 of the Act, 1956 firstly upon her sons and daughters including children of any pre deceased son or daughter. Upon death of Dalibai her 1/4th share in the suit lands would devolve as per section 15 of the Act, 1956 firstly upon her sons and daughters including children of any pre deceased son or daughter. Thus her 1/4th share would devolve upon Bhawarlal, Balaram and Jairam and if it is held that Jairam had already expired at the time of her death, then upon his children i.e. plaintiffs. The issue as to whether or not Jairam was alive on the date of death of Dalibai is hardly of any significance since if he was alive he would inherit 1/3rd share of 1/4th share of Dalibai and if he was dead, then the same would be inherited by plaintiffs who would in either case have total 1/3rd share in the entire suit lands. 11. Even as per Rule 2 of section 16 of the Act, 1956 if Jairam is presumed to have expired prior to Dalibai, since he left behind his own children alive at the time of death of Dalibai, such children i.e. the plaintiffs shall take between them the share which Jairam would have taken if living at the time of death of Dalibai. Thus, the aforesaid Rule does not help the defendants in any manner because as per the Rule itself the plaintiffs would inherit 1/3rd share out of 1/4th share of Dalibai in the suit lands even if it is assumed that Jairam was not alive at the time of her death. The contention of defendants that share of Dalibai would have to be divided into three shares and not twelve shares is wholly misconceived as the division has not been done by the lower appellate Court in that manner but has been done in accordance with Rule 2 of Section 16 relied upon by learned counsel for defendants. 12. Though, 1/3rd out of 1/4th share of Dalibai would devolve upon all the heirs of Jairam i.e. all the plaintiffs and not only upon three of them as has been held by lower appellate Court, but in my opinion, the same is a matter inter se the plaintiffs and none of the plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court in so far as the said finding and decree is concerned. Only for that reason the defendants would not acquire any right to challenge the impugned decree. 13. Only for that reason the defendants would not acquire any right to challenge the impugned decree. 13. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be assailed by defendants on the grounds as have been raised by them in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is consequently dismissed in limine.