Daughters' entitlement to ancestral property under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and its amendment is determined based on the date of death of the coparcener and the nature of the property being ancestral.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this order, I intend to dispose of RSA No.2892 of 2014 along with cross objections No.12-C of 2018.

2. Appeal was once decided by the Co-ordinate Bench on 27.05.2014 by not condoning the delay of 531 days in filing the appeal. Against the said order, appellants preferred Civil Appeal No.579 of 2016 arising out of SLP (C) No.36352 of 2014 titled Ram Kumar and others vs. Rati Ram and others in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 16.01.2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the High Court and remanded the case to the High Court subject to payment of costs of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid by the appellants. The said amount was to be disbursed to the respondents on proper identification. The appeal was ordered to be heard on merits.

3. Plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration, challenging the Civil Court decree dated 08.01.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.918 of 1991 titled Hari Kishan and others vs. Bharat Singh and others. Plaintiffs claimed that the aforesaid decree was fraudulent, null and void. The transfer of ancestral property was effected by the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and husband of plaintiff No.7. Plaintiffs further claimed that they were owners in possession of 23 kanals 11 marlas being 471/2930 share out of total land measuring 146 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Mori, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani. Udmi was predecessor-in-interest of the parties. He had two sons namely Hari Narain and Bharat Singh. Plaintiffs are family members of Bharat Singh, whereas defendants are family members of Hari Narain. Father of the plaintiffs namely Bharat Singh was owner to the extent of half share in the total land measuring 146 kanals 10 marlas i.e. 73 kanals 5 marlas. Plaintiffs and their father formed joint Hindu family and the land was joint Hindu family property with Bharat Singh as its Karta. After the death of Bharat Singh, the property was to be devolved upon the plaintiffs being coparceners of the joint Hindu family. Defendants got transferred 23 kanals 11 marlas of land in their favour vide collusive decree dated 08.01.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.918 of 1991. Plaintiffs challenged the same on the ground of fraud. The property being ancestral property of the plaintiffs, therefore, the transfer was claimed to be illegal, null and void.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the decree in question was executed on the basis of family settlement. No fraud was practiced by the defendants upon Bharat Singh for execution of Civil Court decree. Replication was not filed.

5. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:-

"1) Whether impugned judgment/decree dated 08.01.1991 and consequent impugned mutation No.803 dated 15.07.1998 are illegal on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP

2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP

3) If above issues are proved, whether plaintiffs are entitled for injunction on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP

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

5) Whether plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

6) Whether plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

7) Whether plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

8) Relief."

6. Plaintiffs got examined PW1 Kanwal Singh, (Advocate), PW 2 Anil Bhagal (Advocate), PW 3 Deepak Jain (Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert) and PW 4 Rati Ram (plaintiff No.1). Defendants did not examine any witness in their evidence.

7. Trial Court held the land to be ancestral on the basis of admission made by the parties. The specific averments made by the plaintiffs were not rebutted by the defendants in the written statement and the property was held to be ancestral property of the plaintiffs. Ingredients of fraud were not proved with reference to any evidence on