- (1.) The plaintiffs appeal. They claim to be the presumptive reversioners to one Harnam Singh who owned the property in dispute. On 2-11-1944, after Harnam Singh's death, his daughter Mst. Biro, the second defendant, gifted the plaint properties to her sons who have been grouped together as the first defendant. The plaintiffs contend that the property is ancestral and that the daughter got only a life estate, so they sue for a declaration that the gift will not affect their reversionary rights.
(2.) The defendants rely on custom. They state that, according to the customary law which governs the parties, collaterals beyond the fifth degree are not heirs in the presence of a daughter and her line. The plaintiffs, they say, are collaterals of the seventh degree, therefore they cannot displace the daughter. They also state that the property was not ancestral and so the plaintiffs cannot challenge the daughter's alienation. The third line of defence related to a portion of the property which is not in dispute before us.
(3.) The property in suits consisted of three items: (1) 253 bighas of Khas land; (2) a half share in 3 bighas 19 biswas; and (3) a share in certain shamlat property. The defendants say that Harnam Singh gifted 123 bighas of the Khas land to the second defendant: that the gift was absolute and so the plaintiffs cannot get the portion of the property in any event. ;