1. Ancestral property is property that has been inherited from a common ancestor and has not been acquired by the current owner through self-acquisition. 2. A Will is valid if it is duly attested by two or more attesting witnesses.

D.S.Tewatia, J.

1. One Kirpa made a Will of his property including agricultural land and a house detailed in the plaint in favour of the defendant-respondent on 3rd December, 1952. About five years thereafter, the testator died and on the strength of the said will, Exhibit D.2, the defendant-respondent got the suit land mutated in his name. The plaintiff-appellants, who claimed themselves to be reversioners within fifth degree of Kirpa testator, field the present suit, wherein they sought the possession of the suit property and also sought a declaration to the effect that they were entitled to succeed to the property of Kirpa and that the Will in question is invalid inter alia on the ground that land so willed aways was ancestral property as between the testator and the plaintiff-appellants. The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondent and the trial Court framed the following issues -

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of Kirpa deceased ?

2. Whether Kirpa deceased disposed of the property in dispute by a valid Will in favour of the defendant ?

Note. - Valid means whether the deceased was of disposing mind when he made the Will ?

3. Whether Kirpa deceased was the owner of whole of the house in dispute ?

4. Relief."

Both the trial Court and, on appeal, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit which led to the filing of the present second appeal to this Court at the in stance of the plaintiffs. The appeal came up for hearing before Mehar Singh, C.J., who framed the following two additional issues and remanded the case to the trial Court for report -

"(a) Whether the plaintiffs and Kirpa Singh deceased were governed by rules of customary law prevalent in Kharar Tehsil in regard to disposition of ancestral property by Will ?

(b) Whether the property left by Kirpa Singh deceased is, as between the plaintiffs and Kirpa Singh deceased, ancestral ?"

The trial Court, after receiving the evidence adduced by both the parties on the said two additional issues, held, under the issue relating to the nature of the property, that the suit land situated in village Jhande Majra comprised in Khasra Nos. 1249 (7 Bis.), 1263 (11 Bis.), 1327 (5 Bis.), 85 (11 Bis.), 99 (8 Bis.), 216 (11 Bis.), 234 (12 Bis.), 274 (11 Bis.), 323 (12 Bis.), 508 (4 Bis.), 625 (14 Bis.), 848 (7 Bis.), 855 (10 Bis.), 927 (10 Bis.), 1078, (10 Bis.), 1092 (9 Bis.), 1132 (6 Bis.), 1215 (10 Bis.), 1256 (10 Bis.), and 864 (6 Bis.) is ancestral and the suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 490 (8 Bis.), 713 (2 Bis.), 779 (4 Biswas), 791 (2 Bis.), 1022 (4 Bis.), 1417 (7 Bis.) and 419 (5 Bis.), situated in the same village is non-ancestral. Regarding the land situated in village Majri the whole of it consisting of Khasra No. 3036 was held to be non-ancestral. As regards the Khola house, as shown in the site plan. exhibit P.1, the same was also held to be ancestral. It was conceded before the trial Court that the land found by it to be non-ancestral was, in fact, non ancestral.

2. The trial Court, on the additional issue (a) above, held that the parties were governed by custom and the custom applicable to them prohibited alienation of ancestral property by will. The lower appellate Court, before whom the finding on the additional issue (a) was not challenged, confirmed substantially the finding of the trial Court on the additional issue (b) regarding nature of the property with the exception of one Khasra No. 1078 situated in village Jhande Majra which the lower appellate Court, unlike the trial Court, found to be non-ancestral. Both the parties filed objections under Order 41, Rule 26, Civil Procedure Code, against the report of the trial Court and that of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs have challenged the finding of the Courts below regarding the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 3036 situated in village Majri, of which Kirpa was the occupancy tenant and which right in the said land had been inherited by him from his ancestors on the ground that, in