The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of ancestral property, the impact of the Succession Act, 1956 on property rights, and the validity of the gift deed.

1. This is defendants Regular Second Appeal, who even though in the matter of a suit filed against them by Smt. Chhano seeking possession of the land measuring 23 kanals 4½ marlas might have succeeded inasmuch as the suit was dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1981, lost the matter in an appeal preferred by Smt. Chhano against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, referred to above.

2. Brief facts of the case would reveal that Data Ram and Ganga Ram sons of Jag Ram owned the property in equal share. On the death of Data Ram, his son Jeeta inherited the same. Ganga Ram was married to Sunder. He died issueless. Property owned by him was inherited by his widow Sunder, who is stated to have died in the year 1945. On her demise, the share erstwhile owned by Ganga Ram was also inherited by Jeeta and on the death of Jeeta, his only son Sultan inherited the entire property. He made a sale of the land measuring 25 kanals 17 marlas for a consideration of Rs. 12,000.00 in favour of the defendants vide sale deed dated 5-10-1971. Smt. Chhano filed a suit for declaration and possession seeking decree with regard to the land measuring 25 kanals 17 marlas, which was, however, ultimately decreed to the extent of 23 kanals 4½ marlas by, inter alia, pleading that Jeeta, her father-in-law, during his lifetime had gifted the property owned by him to the extent of ½ share to her whereas, remaining ½ share was gifted to Sultan by way of gift deed executed in the year 1962.

3. Defendant-appellants contested the suit on variety of grounds, as would be reflected from the issues that came to be framed by learned trial Court. Same read thus :-

"1. Whether plaintiff and defendant No. 3 were joint owners of the land 167 kanals 9 marlas as detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint in equal shares? OPP.

2. Whether defendant No. 3 disposed of 81 kanals 2 marlas of land of his share and only 2 kanals 12½ marlas of land was left with him? OPP.

3. The sale made by defendant No. 3 on 25-10-1971 to defendants Set No. 1 vide sale deed No. 131, is null and void not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, because defendant No. 3 had already disposed of land of his share? OPP.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

8. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

9. Whether the plaint has not been properly verified? OPD.

10. Whether Jeeta defendant No. 3 formed a joint Hindu Family and the property in dispute was ancestral of the Jeeta and also coparcenary property of the family? OPD.

11. If issue No. 10 is not proved whether Jeeta and defendant No. 3 are governed by the customary law, whether Jeeta could alienate the property by means of gift, if so its effect? OPD.

12. If issue No. 3 is proved, whether plaintiff has no right to file the suit as alleged in para Nos. 15 and 19 of the written statement? OPD.

13. Whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the land in dispute for consideration of a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 and spent on stamp and registration too? OPD.

14. Whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 spent Rs. 5,000.00 on improvement of the land by means of reclamation and Rs. 5,000.00 on the installation of the tubewell, if so its effect? OPD.

15. Whether defendant No. 3 Sultan sold the land in dispute for legal necessity, i.e., for the payment of just debt of Jeeta deceased? OPD.

16. Whether plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct? OPD.

17. Relief."

4. Resultant trial culminated into the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court vide which, suit filed by Smt. Chhano was dismissed. Constrained, thus, Smt. Chhano filed an appeal with the result already indicated above.

5. As before the Courts below so also before this Court, the controversy centres