ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

1. The appellants are the legal heirs of Daryao Singh. Daryao Singh had died during the pendency of his suit. His legal heirs, the appellants were impleaded as party. The pedigree table set out in the plaint would be necessary. It reads under:-

		Chander Singh
		Umrao Singh
Bhagwan Singh (died in 1974)	Raghu Nath Singh (Dft. No.7)	Harnath Singh (died in 1964)	Amar Singh @ Amir Singh (died on 12.1.92)	Daryao Singh (plaintiff)	Smt. Javtri Devi (deft. no.8)
		Jaibir Singh (deft. No.5)
	Kushal Pal Singh (deft. no.1)	Kuldeep Singh (deft. no.2)	Sandeep Kr. (deft. no.3)	Lalit Kumar (deft. no.4)

2. The property in dispute was owned by Amar Singh @ Amir Singh. He owned 162 Kanals of land situated within the revenue estate of village Mehchana, District Gurgaon. Amar Singh did not marry and died on 12.01.1992. The plaintiffs claimed that Amar Singh had left behind the plaintiffs and defendants no.7 & 8 as his legal heirs as the other two brothers namely Bhagwan Singh and Harnath had predeceased him. The plaintiffs claim that the property in the hands of Amar Singh was ancestral and they were Rajputs by caste and governed by the agricultural custom in the matters of succession and alienation. According to the custom, no proprietor was competent to transfer the ancestral property without the consent of the immediate collaterals and also without legal necessity and Amar Singh was not competent to transfer the property without their consent. The plaintiffs came to know that a false and fraudulent decree had been obtained in a suit filed in 1989 and a decree was passed on 30.09.1989 and it was void, without jurisdiction and did not affect their reversionary rights. It was pleaded that Amar Singh was more than 80 years old, hard of hearing and had a weak eyesight and was illiterate and simpleton and due to old age he was unable to take any decision and had lost sense of discretion and the decree seems to have been procured by playing fraud and the plaintiffs along with defendants no.1 to 4 were entitled to succeed to his estate. It was pleaded that no decree had been suffered and it was apparent from the fact that Amar Singh later sold 11 Marlas of land in June, 1991 and had he suffered a decree, he could not have sold the property as he was no longer its owner and the sale was not objected to by defendants no.1 to 5. It was pleaded that the sale deed dated 11.06.1991 for an alleged consideration of Rs.25,000/- was also illegal and without consideration or legal necessity and the entry in the revenue record showing defendant no.5 in possession was illegal and unwarranted. It was pleaded that if defendant no.5 was held to be a licensee under Amar Singh then the license stood terminated on account of the decree of 1989 and defendant no.5 was liable to surrender the vacant possession.

3. The record shows that an application was moved by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint and introduce a plea that the decree had been obtained by presenting a false and fictitious person. That application was allowed in 1997. Amended plaint was filed and para no.6-A was added.

4. Defendants no.1 to 5 in their amended written statement took the plea of locus standi, estoppel, maintainability, mis-joinder and limitation. It was admitted that Amar Singh had died issueless on 12.01.1992. It was also admitted that Bhagwan Singh and Harnath Singh had pre-deceased Amar Singh. It was denied that they were governed by custom in the matters of succession and alienation. It was pleaded that Amar Singh was the exclusive owner of suit property and it was his self acquired property. It was pleaded that even if the land was held to be ancestral, the plaintiffs and defendants no.7 to 8 were not competent to challenge the decree. It was pleaded that Amar Singh was competent to transfer