Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

By way of the present appeal, the appellants have laid challenge to the judgment, passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur, Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2003, dated 23.08.2003, vide which the learned Lower Appellate Court has partly set aside the judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2002, passed by the then learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P. in Case No. 13-1 of 1998.

2. Material facts, necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that respondents No. 1 & 2/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiffs’) maintained a suit against the appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants’), seeking declaration to the effect that gift deed executed by Shri Bhagwan Dass, in favour of defendants No. 2 & 3, through his Power of Attorney, on 18.11.1997 at Ani, is illegal, null and void and in-operative, qua the rights of plaintiffs and proforma defendants with consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiffs have alleged that Finu was the common ancestor and he was having two sons, namely, Shri Bhagwan Dass and Shri Salig Ram, who had expired and proforma defendants No. 4 to 6 are the sons of deceased Salig Ram. They formed Hindu Joint Family and coparcenery and the property inherited by Shri Bhagwan Dass and Shri Salig Ram is ancestral coparcenery qua the plaintiffs in the hands of Shri Bhagwan Dass. The plaintiffs have further alleged that Shri Bhagwan Dass had got executed gift deed of land, bearing Khassra Nos. 1221 and 1222, measuring 6-19 bighas, situated at Mauza Janja, Phati Kungash, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, through his Power of Attorney, Shri Bansi Lal, on 18.11.1997, in favour of defendants No. 2 & 3, without any legal right, as the property in question is ancestral and coparcenery and Shri Bhagwan Dass had no right to gift away the suit property to defendants No. 2 & 3, without the consent of other coparceners, including the plaintiffs and as such, the gift deed is illegal, null and void and in-operative and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that defendants No. 2 & 3, who are minors, have been sued through their father-natural guardian, Shri Bansi Lal, who has no interest adverse to them. The plaintiffs have further alleged that they requested the defendants to get the gift deed revoked, but in vain.

3. Defendants resisted and contested the suit by raising preliminary objections of non-compliance under Order 32, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit not being properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, estoppal, locus standi and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the defendants have denied that Shri Bhagwan Dass and Shri Salig Ram formed a Joint Hindu Family and coparcenery property. They had pleaded that after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the concept of ancestral coparcenery property has completely extinguished. The defendants have denied that Shri Bhagwan Dass had no legal right to execute gift deed. The defendants have alleged the gift deed to be legal, valid and operative. They have further alleged that the plaintiffs have been given their share in a family arrangements in the year, 1994 and since then, the parties are living separately The defendants have also alleged that that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and the same has been filed maliciously and with intention to pressurize and harass the defendants.

4. The plaintiffs filed replication, in which the averments contained in the plaint were re-affirmed and re-asserted and the allegations contained in the written statement were denied.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 17.08.1999:-

“1. Whether gift deed dated 18.11.1997 is illegal, null and void, as alleg