ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Substitution allowed.

3. Though the respondent has been served, he is not appearing either in person or through counsel. We have heard the counsel for the appellants. The respondent filed a suit in 1978 for recovery of possession of the land from the appellants on the basis of a declaratory decree obtained by one Nathu in the year 1924 as a collateral on the basis of the custom. It is their case that the appellant had purchased the property from Rulia who is an alienator to Nathu and under the custom he was nearest collateral and this alienation was not supported by consideration . On appeal, dismissal of the suit by trial Court met reversal. The Second Appeal was dismissed in RSA No. 2416/79. In execution the appellant took the plea that since the customary right had been taken away by an amendment made later, the decree passed by the trial Court is a nullity. That application was negatived and in the impugned order dated January 30, 1992 the High Court dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. The controversy is no longer res Integra. This Court in Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh1 considered the effect of-the Amendment Act 1973 on the custo