Viney Mittal, J. - The plaintiffs having concurrently remained unsuccessful before the learned two courts below have approached this Court through the present regular second appeal.

2. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that decree dated November 27, 1980 suffered by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 was illegal, bad, ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. It was claimed that the aforesaid decree had been suffered by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 with regard to ancestral property and, therefore, the alienation of the aforesaid ancestral property being without consideration and without any legal necessity was against the customary law.

3. The detailed facts, as pleaded by the parties, need not be noticed in detail in this judgment inasmuch as the aforesaid facts stand duly noticed by the learned two courts below. Suffice it to note that the claim made by the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants by filing a joint written statement. The validity of the aforesaid decree was defended by the defendants. It was specifically claimed by the defendants that the property covered under the aforesaid decree was not ancest