Devinder Gupta, J.—Both these appeals preferred by the plaintiff arise out of the judgment and decree passed on 15th June, 1984 by District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant and partly allowing the appeal of defendant-respondent, thereby modifying the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge, Kangra dated 23rd February, 1981.

2. The admitted facts are that one Gauri had two sons Santa and Vishnu. Santu died issueless on 22nd February, 1920. Vishnu had two wives, Godavari and Dharmi Devi Plaintiff Om Parkash is Vishnus son out of Godavari. Respondent Sarvjit Singh is also Vishnus son out of Dharmi Devi. Chandermu was the mother of Vishnu.

3. It is the plaintiff-appellants case that the suit property, namely, the agricultural land, as described in para 1-A of the plaint and houses described in para 1-B of the plaint was a coparcenary joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff, defendant Sarvjit Singh and their father Vishnu, The entire property was ancestral in the hands of Vishnu, who was also the karta and Manager of the Joint Hindu Family. Since the entire property was earlier held by Gauri, who was succeeded by his two sons, Santa and Vishnu on the death of Santu, his estate devolved upon Vishnu, who died on 21st September, 1960 and on his death, Ms estate devolved upon his mother Chandermu, widow Dharmi Devi and two sons, plaintiff and defendant Sarvjit Singh, It is also alleged that Vishnu was a spend-thrift and without any legal necessity on 23rd January, 1959, a gift was made by him with respect to the property, which had devolved upon him by survivorship on the death of his brother .Santu, in favour of his wife Smt Dharmi Devi- This act5 on the part of Vishnu in having made the gift was challenged by plaintiff as illegal, since according to plaintiff this was ancestral property in the hands of Vishnu and he had no right to make gift.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants, who denied the ancestral nature of the property and claimed that the property inherited by Vishnu from his brother Santu was not ancestral. It was a separate property of Vishnu and he was within his rights to have made the gift and the plaintiff had no right to challenge the same. The suit was also contested on other grounds.

5. The trial Court held that the suit land, as described in para1-A of the plaint, namely, agricultural land, which Vishnu inherited from his brother Santu was neither ancestral, nor a joint Hindu coparcenary property, since it did not come to him by survivorship but came by succession. So far as the houses described in para 1-B of the plaint are concerned, it was held that the same were the joint Hindu coparcenary property. The gift made by Vishnu in favour of his wife was upheld in so far as the agricultural land "described in para 1-A of the plaint is concerned being his separate or self-acquired property. In so far as the houses are concerned, it was held that the same formed part of coparcenary and the same also did not find mention in the deed of gift. The Court also found that the same could not be alienated by Vishnu. As a consequence of these findings, the plaintiffs suit with respect to the house property described in para 1-B of the plaint was decreed. A preliminary decree was passed for separate possession of one half share in the houses in favour of the plaintiff. His suit as regards agricultural land described in para 1-A of the plaint was dismissed. 6 Feeling aggrieved, two appeals were preferred, one by plaintiff, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 68/81 and the other by defendants being Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1981. The lower appellate Court held that on the death of Santu, who died without leaving any male issue, the property was inherited by Vishnu, which on such inheritance was held by him as his separate property and not ancestral property. Since the execution of the gift was not disputed, the lower appellate Court upheld the validity of the gift. The l