The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the ancestral nature of the property, and formal proof is required for revenue excerpts.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1 Plaintiff No. 1 has preferred this appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below.

2 Plaintiff No. 1 along-with performa respondent Nos. 6 to 9 filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Parties to the suit belong to the same family. Pedigree table as provided in para No. 1 of the plaint is reproduced below:-

3 Plaintiff No.l. and performa respondents have challenged judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.1086 of 17.11.1995 titled as Daya Nand V/s. Bhani, primarily on the ground that property in dispute is ancestral which could not have been transferred by Bhani by way of a decree in favour of defendant No.l. Daya Nand.

4 In the written statement, it was denied that the land in question is ancestral. Rather, it is claimed that Bhani-defendant No.5. had inherited the property in question from her husband by way of succession and had become absolute owner as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the Civil Court decree and judgment dated 9.12.95 passed in Civil suit no.1086 is illegal, null and void ineffective,in operative and without jurisdiction on the ground mentioned in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the Judgment and decree are mere paper transaction and fraud and mis-representation? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit and to the extent of 2/3rd share mentioned in the plaint? OPP

4. Whether the parties to the suit are agriculturist and they are governed by customary law in matter of alienation? OPP

5. Whether their exists any custom, a female has no right as alleged in the plaint, if so as to what effect? OPP

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

7. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

8. Whether the suit is barred U/O 23 rule 3-A CPC? OPD

9. Whether the defendant No.5 has become absolute owner in possession of the suit property? OPD

10. Relief.

6 In order to substantiate their respective cases, the plaintiffs examined Hawa Singh as PW-1 who proved Ex.P-1 jamabandi for the year 1991-92, Ex.P-2, mutation dated 24.2.1996, Ex.P-3 Sajra Nasab (Pedigree table), Ex.P-4 copy of judgment dated 9.12.1995, Ex.P-5 copy of decree sheet dated 9.12.1995, Mark-A copy of plaint dated 17.11.1995, Mark-B copy of written statement dated 6.12.1995, Satte appeared as PW-2, Shashi Bhushan, Sadar Patwari appeared as PW-3 and proved Ex.P-6 Excerpt (half in Urdu) and plaintiffs evidence was closed on 6.4.2005.

7 Defendants examined Bhagwan as DW-1 who tendered his affidavit as Ex.DWl/A and proved Ex.DlVoter list for the year 1989, Ex.D-2 Voter list for the year 1999, Ex.D-3 jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, Ex.D-4 Mutation dated 16.2.1996/24.2.1996, Ex.D-5 Voter list for the year 1981, Ex.D-6 Khasra Girdawari for the year 1999 to 2005, Ex.D-7 copy of judgment (same as Ex.P4), Ex.D8 copy of decree sheet (same as Ex.P5) and closed their evidence on 17.8.2005.

8 In rebuttal, plaintiffs tendered document Ex.P6/A (Hindi version of Urdu document of Ex.P6) and closed their evidence in rebuttal on 1.10.2005.

9 The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide its judgment and decree dated 03.10.2005 which was challenged in appeal only by plaintiff No.1.

10 Learned first Appellate Court carved out four questions from the pleadings and arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties:-

(i) Whether or not the suit property was ancestral?

(ii) Whether or not Smt. Bhani was competent to alienate the suit property on the ground of prevalent custom?

(iii) Whether or not the judgment and decree date 9.12.1995 required registration?

(iv) Whether or not, the suit was barred under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

11 All the four questions were decided by learned first Appellate Court against the plaintiff/appellant and dismissed his suit vide its judgment and