A collateral in the 6th degree is not entitled to challenge a gift deed executed by a sonless Ahir in favor of his near relations in lieu of services rendered, as per the custom prevalent in the agricultural tribes of Gurgaon District.

R.K.Nehru, J.

1. Plaintiff appellants have come up in this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 3, 1979 of the first Appellate Court affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court resulting in the dismissal of the suit.

2. Ram Rikh, deceased legally represented by the appellants filed a suit for declaration that the impugned gift deed dated June 3, 1966 (Ex. D 1) executed by defendant Hira (since deceased) in favour of Suraj Bhan (since deceased) legally represented by the respondents was null and void and not binding on his rights and for mandatory injunction to restrain Suraj Bhan defendant from interfering in his ownership and possession over the land in suit. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought the relief for possession of the suit land It. is alleged by the plaintiff that the suit land was ancestral in nature and the parties being governed by custom in the matter of succession and alienation, Hira defendant was not competent to gift away the suit land to Suraj Bhan, defendant respondent, who is his sisters son.

3. The suit was contested by defendant-respondent Sursj Bhan who inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff was not the collateral of the donor Hira within 5th degree and as such he had no locus standi to challenge the gift deed made in his favour by said Hira. He further agreed that the suit property was not ancestral and the same was gifted away by Hira in lieu of the services rendered by him and that be was in possession of the suit land

4. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is a collateral of Hira ? If so, in what degree and effect thereof ? OPP

2. Whether the suit land is an ancestral qua the plaintiff and the donor ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff and the donor are governed by custom in matters of succession and alienation ? If so, what the custom is ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ? OPP

5. Relief.

5. Under issue No. 1, the trial Judge held that the plaintiff Ram Rikh (since deceased) was the collateral of defendant donor Hira within 6th degree and not in the 5th degree and as such he had no right to challenge the gift made by Hira in favour of the defendant Suraj Bhan (since deceased).

6. Under issue No. 2 it was held that the land was not ancestral qua the plaintiff.

7. Under issue No, 3 it was held that although the parties were governed by custom in the matter of succession and alienation and yet that Hira had validly gifted the land in favour of the defendant in lieu of services rendered by him.

8. In the result, the learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated September 26, 1975 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs

9. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.1979 which is under attack in this Regular Second Appeal,

10. Before I proceed further, I would like to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, some of the appellants namely; Smt. Lado daughter of Ram Rikh, MaUdin, Siri Ram and Surjeet sons of Nar Singh son of Khuba filed civil miscellaneous under Order 23 Rule 1, for permission to withdraw the appeal on the ground that the appellant namely; Ami Lal had agreed to pay an amount of Rs. Five Lacs in lieu of relinquishment of rights by the defendants. Alongwith this application, a compromise deed stated to have been executed between such arties was also filed. This Civil Misc was ordered to be considered at the time of final disposal of this Regular Second Appeal.

11. When this Regular Second Appeal came up before me for final hearing today, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants, on whose behalf Civil Misc. No. 2899-C of 1991 was filed. When the learned counsel for those appellants was asked to produce his clients so that the statements of the parties to the said compromise be recorded, he stated that his party was no more interested in this appeal and the appeal b