K. Kannan, J. - (1.) I find from the record that this Court has not framed any substantial questions of law. After going through the pleadings and the judgment, I am of the view that following substantial questions of law arise for consideration. 1. Whether the Jats in Punjab are governed by local customs which are at variance with Mitakshara co -parcenary that admit to sons as co -parceners a right by birth in the property held as ancestral property ?
(2.) WHETHER the plaintiffs have established the suit properties to be ancestral to stake the claim to the properties and to contend that the decree suffered by the father was collusive and not binding on them ? I have directed the counsel's attention to the substantial questions of law framed in this regard and the counsel argues that the plaintiffs themselves have not admittedly proved the ancestral character of the property but it comes through an admission of DW1 and DW3. The Court has examined these so -called admissions as well and has held that the character of the property as ancestral must be clearly established but the plaintiffs have not established the same. The plaintiffs' attempt was to show that at the trial their father was insane and that he had frittered away their interest in the property through the collusive decree obtained by defendants No. 1 to 3 in Suit No. 202 dated 01.09.1979. The admissions by the adversary could be the basis to support the party who relies on the same but it would still be taken as corroborative of what is required to be proved in a case. In this case the father himself has appeared and the Courts below have observed that he had stood the cross -examination well and the suit itself had not been laid against the father as an insane person or proposing any guardian on account of the alleged inability to attend to his own affairs. In a case where the father was sued as 4th defendant in his own right, the plaintiffs could not have taken the plea that the father was insane and he had forsaken the right of the plaintiffs in a collusive decree. The Court found that it was necessary to establish the joint family character of the properties in order to sustain the plaintiffs' claim but no such attempt at all was made by the plaintiffs. The Court, however, come to the conclusion that the so -called admission cannot secure to the plaintiffs the relief which they seek for. 2. The question of law regarding whether Jats are governed by their own customs which are at variance with the Mitakshara is not required to be answered and the case has to be dismissed only on a singular consideration that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove ancestral character of the property and their entitlement to share the property by birth. The compromise effected by the father in favour of the third party admitting to their title in that suit could not be subject of being assailed in an independent suit, more so in a situation where the plaintiffs have made no attempt to prove their entitlement to the property. The orders passed by both the Courts below are perfectly justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The second appeal is dismissed.;