The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the ancestral property, validity of the gift deed, and the requirement of delivery of possession in the context of Joint Hindu Family and property rights.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995.

2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs" for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and joint possession to the effect that the land detailed in the plaint, measuring 45-12-13 bighas, situated in DPF Dhadra No. H.B. 511 illaqua Ramgarh, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land" for brevity sake) being ancestral and coparcenary property of the parties and the plaintiffs being member of the said joint Hindu No. family, have got right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of their birth and respondent (deceased)-defendant No. 1, namely, Padma, (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant No. 1" for the convenience sake), being 'Karta'/Manager of the aforesaid joint Hindu family, had no right, title or authority to alienate, transfer, sell, gift or dispose of the same and the gift deed No. 556, dated 27.11.1992, Ex. PW-1/B along with mutation No. 155, dated 30. 12. 1992, Ex. PW-1/C are wrong, illegal, null and void. According to the plaintiffs, there was no actual delivery of possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs have also prayed for decree for joint possession to the extent of ?th share in the suit land. According to them, the defendant No. 5 has succeeded in getting the suit property gifted to defendants No. 2 to 4 vide Ex. PW-1/B. Defendants No. 2 to 4 are sons of defendant No. 5 Shri Durga Nand.

3. Written statement was filed by defendants No. 2 to 4. On merits, it is admitted that defendant No. 1 (since deceased) was joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of the share, but it is denied specifically that the suit land is ancestral and coparcenary property of the parties. It is denied that defendant No. 1 has inherited the suit land from his grand father. It is stated that Ramu, Phitu, Ghungar, Surju, Basakhu and Dinu were real brothers. Bashakhu died issue less and his estate was inherited by his five brothers. Phitu gifted his entire share in the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 has only inherited the ancestral property of his father, named, Ramu, which is about 5-10-0 bighas and the defendant also got about 5 bigha of the land through gift which did not come under the preview of ancestral property. Defendant No. 1 has only disposed of that property by way of gift, which he got from his uncle named Phitu. According to them, the ancestral property inherited by defendant No. 1 was still intact. It is admitted that defendant No. 1 gifted ?th share in the suit land to defendants No. 2 to 4 out of his own consent and free will. It is also asserted that possession of the suit land was also delivered to defendants No. 2 to 4 and now these defendants are owners in possession of the suit land.

4. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs. Learned trial court framed the issues on 29.09.1993. The trial court dismissed the suit on 30.05.1994. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P.. The same was dismissed on 24.05.2000. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the presumption of joint ness of a Joint Hindu Family has to be presumed.

2. Whether the findings are vitiated on account of mis-construction and mis-appreciation of the pleadings of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence on record?

3. Whether gift deed Ex. PW-1/A is invalid for want of delivery of possession and it could not be executed for want of right to do so.?

5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the suit property was ancestral and the same could not be gifted b