Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- This is plaintiffs second appeal, who are the collaterals of one Ujagar Singh, who was the owner of the land in dispute and was married to Dhan Kaur and had a son namely, Malkiat Singh. The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against sons of one Asa Singh (defendants No.1 & 2) in respect of suit land alleging therein that after the death of Ujagar Singh, his estate was inherited by his son Malkiat Singh and after his death it devolved upon Dhan Kaur as his mother, who wanted to remarry but as the parties were governed by custom under which a widow forfeits her right to the property on her re-marriage, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and Dhan Kaur entered into an agreement for her remarriage on the condition that Dhan Kaur would loose her all interest in the property in dispute and would be gifted some land to be retained by her till death with the prohibition not to sell or transfer it with further rider that after her death the said land would also devolve upon the heirs of the donors. It was alleged that Dhan Kaur died 3-4 years ago i.e. somewhere in 1975-76 as the suit was filed on 19.10.1979 but the defendants illegally entered into possession and started claiming ownership on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Dhan Kaur in their favour although she was not competent to do so being the limited owner. In the written statement, it was alleged by the defendants that Dhan Kaur was absolute owner of the suit land as recorded in jamabandi for the year 1956/57 and was governed by Hindu Succession Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) as per which she was competent to alienate and transfer her land according to her wishes. It was also alleged that remarriage of Dhan Kaur had not caused any forfeiture of her rights. They denied the story coined by the plaintiffs with regard to gift and the agreement and staked their claim on the ground that Dhan Kaur had become absolute owner. So far as defendant No.3 is concerned, he did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:

“1. Whether the land in suit was allotted to Dhan Kaur in consolidation in lieu of the land which was once held by Malkiat Singh son of Ujagar Singh? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs and Dhan Kaur were governed by custom in the matters of marriage and succession? If so, what that custom is? If not, its effect? OPP.

3. Whether the ancestors of the plaintiffs entered into any valid agreement with Dhan Kaur? If so, when on what terms and with what effect? OPP.

4. Whether ancestors of the plaintiffs gave the land to Dhan Kaur vide any gift deed? If so, when and on what terms? OPP

5. Whether the suit is within time? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the land in suit and they have got locus standi to sue? OPP

7. Whether Dhan Kaur gifted any land in favour of the defendants vide gift deed dated 3.6.57? OPD

8. Whether the defendants are in adverse and hostile possession of the suit land? OPD

8-A Whether the defendants have made improvements in the suit property as alleged? If so, to what effect? OPD (framed on 4.2.82).

8-B Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD. (framed on 4.2.82)

9. Relief.

2. Both the parties led their respective evidence on the basis of which the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by its judgment and decree dated 11.8.1982, which was upheld by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 9.8.1984 as a result of which present appeal has been filed, which was admitted on 18.12.1984.

3. In the beginning of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Dhan Kaur had not become absolute owner of the property in dispute which she had acquired because of an agreement (Ex.P-1) or gift deed (Ex.P-2) and as such provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act would apply which is an exception to Section 1