JUDGMENT

OZA, J. :— These appeals arise out of the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 21-9-1984 in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1716/78 and 1698/78 wherein the learned Judge dismissed the two second appeals and maintained the judgment of the appellate court i.e. Additional District Judge granting a decree for half share of the property each in favour of Smt. Pan Bai and Smt. Sohan Bai, the two daughters of deceased Smt. Mam Kaur.

2. In order to clearly understand the facts the pedigree of the family would be relevant :

Hari Singh

Sanehi Singh Hazari Singh - Smt. Mam Kaur Jawana Singh

Lakhi Singh ________________________________________

Ranjit Singh and 6 other sons (Defendants 7 to 13) Smt. Pan Bai (Plaintiff in suit out of which RSA No. 1698 of 1978 has arisen) Smt. Sohan Bai (Plaintiff in suit out of which RSA No. 1716 of 1978 has arisen) Munshi Singh and five others (defendants Nos. 1 to 6)

3. Hazari Singh owned agricultural lands the dimensions and its identity is not in dispute before us and he died in November 1918 leaving beind his widow Smt. Mam Kaur who inherited the property. Hazari Singh had left behind two daughters i.e. Smt. Pan Bai, Plaintiff in the suit out of which second appeal before the High Court was No. 1698/78 and Smt. Sohan Bai who was also a plaintiff in suit out of which second appeal before the High Court was No. 1716/78. In 1944 it is alleged that Smt. Mam Kaur adopted Ranjit Singh grandson of Sanehi Singh and son of Lakhi Singh. This Ranjit Singh had six other brothers and it is alleged that in 1945 Smt. Mam Kaur gifted all the lands which she had inherited from her husband by an oral gift to Ranjit Singh. As regards the two events i.e. adoption and gift there is some controversy in respect of the respective dates. It appears and it was contended by the counsel for the appellants that adoption was first and gift was only a consequential act to accelerate the succession whereas learned counsel for the respondents contended that gift was first whereas adoption was subsequent. But it is not disputed that the gift also is nothing more than an oral gift and the same is about adoption.

4. Munshi Singh and his five brothers filed a suit for declaration challenging this gift and adoption made by Smt. Mam Kaur in favour of Ranjit Singh. By judgment and decree dated 24-7-1947 the suit was decreed and it was held that the adoption of Ranjit Singh was invalid and the gift also was held to be invalid and a declaration was granted in respect of gift so far as it affected the reversionary rights. Against this judgment Ranjit Singh preferred an appeal but this was also dismissed.

5. On 4th June, 1963 Smt. Mam Kaur sold away the entire lands to Ranjit Singh and his brothers for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- . Thereafter to claim-pre-emption a suit was filed by Smt. Pan Bai and the other suit was filed by Munshi Singh and his five brothers on the ground that as reversioners they have a superior right to pre-emption. In these pre-emption matters ultimately the Court held that Smt. Pan Bai had a superior right as compared to Munshi Singh and his brothers and therefore an earlier date was given to Smt. Pan Bai to deposit the sale amount and seek pre-emption failing which her suit was to be dismissed and a later date was given to Munshi Singh and his brothers to deposit the sale amount and opt for pre-emption. Similar condition of dismissal of the suit for failure of depositing the amount was imposed So far as Smt. Pan Bai is concerned she did riot deposit the amount and therefore her suit for pre-emption was dismissed where as Munshi Singh and others deposited the amount and obtained a decree of pre-emption which was executed and they obtained possession and in this manner they stood substituted in the sale.

6. In January 1965 Smt. Mam Kaur died and Smt. Sohan Bai filed a suit bearing, No. 403/65 seeking a decree for possession of half of the share on the plea that in view of the declaratory decree dated 24-7-1947 which