The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of ancestral property rights and notional shares under the Tenancy Act and the Hindu Succession Act.

1. - The subject-matter of both these cases being same and factual and legal averments being identical, they are being disposed of with this common judgment, copy of which shall be retained in each file.

2. Het Ram-appellant in above First Appeal, allegedly by an agreement to sale dated 3.4.1984 (Annex. 1) agreed to sale 16 bighas 10 biswas land situated in chak No. 3MSD, the details of which is mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition. The land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 11000/- per bigha and out of sale price, Rs. 80,000/- were allegedly paid to Het Ram in cash at the time of execution of Annx.1. The possession of the land was also alleged to have been given to Ram Kumar .

3. It was mentioned in Annx.1 that remaining amount was to be paid on 2.8.1984 when sale-deed was to be registered. Vide Annxs.2 and 3, this date was extended up to one month from getting the permission of sale from the revenue authorities.

4. Rajendra and Satpal-sons of Het Ram, filed a suit under sections 88 & 188 of the Tenancy Act, for declaration and partition, against their father Het Ram, uncle Hanuman and grand-mother Mst. Dhapi and against remaining three brothers, with the averments that the land was ancestral and had been inherited by Het Ram and his brother Hanuman after death of Lalu Ram, who was recorded khatedar under mutation No. 20 entered on 2.5.1957 to above effect. It was averred that Het Ram was not entitled to sell 16.5 bighas land as it was more than his notional share. It was also averred that Mst. Dhapi, widow of late Lalu Ram, was not given her share after death of her husband and she also filed a suit under section 88 of the Tenancy Act against Het Ram and Hanuman, which was decreed on 25.10.1985 and name of Mst. Dhapi was also added along with Het Ram and Hanuman.

5. It was also mentioned in the plaint that 15 bighas land of chak 5 & 6 LC situated in village 3 MSD, in the joint name of Het Ram and Hanuman, has already been sold by them jointly. The remaining 33 bighas land, situated in chak 3 MSD was in the joint name of Het Ram, Hanuman and Mst. Dhapi, in which only 11 bighas fall in the notional share of Het Ram. It was further submitted that 5 sons of Het Ram, Rajendra, Satpal (plaintiffs), Krishna, Hansraj and Banshi Lal (defendants No. 6 to 8). Het Ram's wife Mst. Phula Devi (defendant No. 9) also had equal share in the notional share of Het Ram. Therefore, in 11 bighas notional share of Het Ram, the latter had only 1/7th share, which comes to 1.3 bighas and therefore, agreement to sale beyond his notional share could not be executed.

6. Ram Kumar, defendant No. 4, who was added subsequently, contested the suit and after evidence of both the parties, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar vide order dated 7.2.1991, dismissed the suit because plaintiffs could not prove that land in question was ancestral land.

7. Aggrieved against that order, the plaintiffs filed appeal No. 8/91 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar, which was also dismissed vide order Annx. 11 dated 23.6.1993. A second appeal before the Board of Revenue was, however, accepted vide order Annx. 12 dated 16.10.1998. Hence this writ petition u/Art. 226 before this Court.

8. Meanwhile, Ram Kumar filed a suit No. 48/87 against Het Ram for specific performance of agreement to sale, in the Court of Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, which after evidence of the parties, was decreed on 8.5.2000. Hence above First Appeal before this Court.

9. The points for determination before this Court are :

(1) Whether the property in question was ancestral property in the hands of Het Ram and what was his notional share in the property?

(2) Whether the judgment of the Board of Revenue Annx. 12 dated 16.10.1998 was illegal and misconceived and can not stand in the eye of law?

(3) Whether Het Ram was competent to execute agreement to sale for 16.5 bighas land and the decree of specific performance passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisin