According to agricultural custom defendant No.1 companyld number transfer the suit land in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5 who were number his heirs to the exclusion of the plaintiffs who were his heirs.
Ramgopal , father of the plaintiffs died some years ago.
It was alleged that defendants Nos.6 7 have companyluded with defendant Nos.1 to 5.
Plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 were minors and the suit was filed on their behalf by the mother Smt.
2 is the son and defendant No.
1, defendant Nos.
It was because of that reason that the family settlement was arrived at in order to avoid family dispute.
476 of 1984.
It was further alleged that plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are sons of Ramgopal and the land is ancestral property.
476 of 1978 titled Jagbir and others vs. Ganeshi and others dated 27.10.1978 relating to the suit land be declared null and void and a declaration be given that the plaintiffs have a right to inherit the suit land on the death of defendant No.
1 suffered that decree against him on his admission on 27.10.1978.
2 to 5 filed a companylusive suit against defendant No.
1 did number transfer and alienate the land in suit in favour of the answering defendants, but the suit land was settled on them by way of family settlement arrived at between the defendants.
1 pacified all the members of the family by way of a family settlement.
4 is the son and defendant No.
1 and 2 are minors and they filed the present suit through their mother Smt.
Defendant No.
The case of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 was that they are the sons of one Ramgopal and Padam Devi, widow of deceased Ramgopal.
It was also alleged that defendant No.
It was alleged that defendant No.
It was denied that the land was ancestral.
It was further alleged that, in the alternative, the said decree amounts to alienation and without companysideration and legal necessity.
The defendants companytested the suit.
It was also denied that defendant No.1 was under the influence of his surviving sons.
1 on his death.
476 of 1978 in the Court of sub Judge, IInd Class, Palwal for declaration that they are owners of the suit land.
1 was under the influence of his surviving sons namely, Dharambir and Yugal Kishore Jugal Singh.
1 and in the alternative for declaration that the alienation of the suit land made by defendant No.
The plaintiffs Nos.
58 of 1980 with a prayer that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.
1 as given in the pedigree table given in para of the plaint.
It was alleged that a month before filing of the plaint, the plaintiffs came to know the that in order to deprive them of their right to inherit the suit land on the death of defendant No.
It was alleged that since defendant No.1 gifted some of his land in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 2, this resulted in a family unrest and hence defendant No.
Padam Devi who was also one of the plaintiffs.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
It was alleged that defendant No.1 Ganeshi had three sons, being Ramgopal, Dharambir and Jugal.
Defendant No.
Defendant No.
Some agricultural land was already gifted by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2.
1 in favour of defendants 2 to 5 by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.10.1978 is null and void being against the custom and will number operate against the right for succession of the plaintiffs and other heirs of defendant No.
1 is a Hindu Jat and is governed by the agricultural custom according to which ancestral immovable property cannot be alienated except for legal necessity and companysideration.
3 is the wife of Dharambir.
5 is the wife of Yugal Kishore Jugal Singh.
It was alleged that the said decree companyld number extinguish the rights of ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land, and it was null and void and would number operate against the plaintiffs right of succession on the death of defendant No.1.
The respondents herein filed a Civil Suit being No.
It was alleged that the plaintiffs as well as the other defendants were the descendants of defendant No.
1 bearing suit No.
Padam Devi.
Markandey Katju, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.3.2005 of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.
