The central legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the ancestral and co-parcenary nature of the joint Hindu family property and the invalidity of the decrees challenged by the plaintiff.

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants in the original lis. Plaintiff-Mahabir Singh succeeded before the trial Court in view of judgment and decree dated 14.2.1989. This judgment and decree was challenged by the defendants before the learned first Appellate Court but without any success inasmuch as the same came to be dismissed on 7.6.1991.

2. Briefly put, it has been the case of plaintiff-Mahabir Singh that his father Sher Singh was owner of 177 Kanals situated at village Hathur, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana which was ancestral in his hands (Sher Singh). He along with other brothers, namely, Surjit Singh, Dalip Singh and Manjit Singh, has right in the land aforesaid by birth, the property being joint Hindu family co-parcenery property. Sher Singh, during his life time, had suffered a decree pertaining to parcel of land measuring 69 kanals 5 marlas out of total land measuring 177 kanals in favour of his son Surjit Singh on 10.10.1986, whereas another piece of land measuring 69 kanals 5 marlas was transferred in favour of Manjit Singh vide yet another civil court decree dated 12.8.1961. Sher Singh suffered still another decree dated 22.9.1986 vide which he transferred land measuring 38 kanals in favour of another son Dalip Singh. First two decrees, as mentioned above, came to be challenged by plaintiff-Mahabir Singh by primarily stating that the Sher Singh had no right whatsoever to confer proprietary rights to other brothers to his complete exclusion, property being joint Hindu family property in which he had right by birth. It is conceded position that the decrees, subject matter of challenge, came to be passed in favour of Surjit Singh and Manjit Singh on the basis of family settlement.

3. The cause of plaintiff was contested by the defendant/appellants on various grounds as would be reflected from the issues that came to be framed by the learned trial court on the pleadings of the parties. Same are reproduced as under :-

"1. Whether the property in dispute is joint Hindu family co- parcenary property ? OPP

2. Whether the civil court decree dated 12.8.1986 is null, void, illegal and inoperative, qua the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP

3. Whether the civil court decree dated 10.10.1986 is null, void, illegal, inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP

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

5. Relief."

4. The trial, as mentioned above, resulted into decree in favour of the plaintiff, which has since been affirmed by the first appellate Court.

5. Mr. Saggar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that admission alone does not prove the nature of land, i.e., as to whether the same is self-acquired or co-parcenary property and whenever a plea with regard to nature of property being ancestral is raised, same has to be proved on the dint of documentary evidence. He further contends that the courts below were not justified in returning a finding to the effect that the property in dispute was ancestral on the basis of non-specific denial of the said fact in the written statement.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the records of the case, the Court finds no substance in the only contention of the learned counsel, as noted above. Issue No. 1, which pertains to property in dispute being joint Hindu family co-parcenery property or not, has since been discussed by the learned first Appellate Court and it would be useful to give observations made by the said Court on the issue aforesaid. Same are as follows :-

"11. Shri Mahabir Singh, plaintiff PW6 has stated that Sher Singh is the father while he, Manjit Singh, Surjit Singh and Dalip Singh are his sons. They constitute a Joint Hindu family and each and every member of the said Joint Hindu family has got share in the suit property which is the ancestral and co-parcenary property. In broad out lines, Chet Singh PW2, Gurdev Singh PW3, Ajit Singh PW4 and Darbara Sing