Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) Plaintiffs Dhikkal daughter of Giasi (defendant) and Mukandi son of Maha Sukh filed the suit claiming the relief as follows: - "(1) Declaration that deft No. 1 is owner in possession of the agricultural land described in sub paras A & B of para No. 2 of the plaint and that the decree dt. 1.9.76 in civil suit entitled 'Gulkandi v/s. Giasi' No. 454 of 1976 was null and void and has not extinguished his rights of ownership in respect thereof, and that the said decree will not operate against their rights of inheritance on the death of deft No. 1. (2) xxx..........xxx......... (3) In the alternative, declaration that the alienation of the land in suit by deft. No. 1 in favour of deft. No. 2 through decree dt. 1.9.76 in civil suit No. 454 of 1976 being against custom and authority was null and void and would not operate against the right of succession of the plffs and other heirs of deft. No. 1 when the succession would open on his death." Plaintiffs averred that Giasi had four daughters and no male child. The suit property measuring 18 kanals 10 marks situated in revenue estate of village Adoupur, Tehsil Palwal and 46 kanals 6 -1/3 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Alika, Tehsil Palwal is the joint Hindu family coparcenary property. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.1976 passed in civil suit No. 454 of 22.07.1976 titled 'Smt. Gulkandi v/s. Giasi', the entire suit land was transferred in the name of Gulkandi, defendant No. 2 (daughter of Giasi), alleging a family settlement. The plaintiffs challenged the above judgment and decree in favour of Gulkandi on the ground that Giasi was not competent to alienate the suit land without an instrument in writing duly registered; it was a collusive decree against public policy; story of family settlement was baseless and fabricated and this fact was concealed that Giasi had three more daughters; Giasi appeared in the Court and made statement supporting the claim of Gulkandi, defendant No. 2 without admitting the alleged family arrangement in the year 1973; the Court also did not make any independent inquiry about the legality and existence of alleged transfer of land by Giasi in favour of Gulkandi in the year 1973; Giasi was under the undue influence of defendant No. 2 Gulkandi and the judgment and decree was the result of that undue influence.
(2.) Plaintiffs further alleged that the parties belong to' Jat' tribe (sic community) and in the matter of alienation are governed by agricultural custom, according to which, ancestral property could not be alienated without consideration and legal necessity and could not be transferred by gift. The alienation by decree dated 01.09.1976 is null and void being against the custom amongst Jats.
(3.) Defendant No. 2 contested the claim of plaintiffs, inter -alia pleading that the suit is barred by limitation and plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. While plaintiff No. 1 being female was not a reversioner and plaintiff No. 2 is not related to defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs have no common cause as such, could not file a joint suit. The decree dated 01.09.1976 binds defendant No. 1 and also the plaintiffs. All the other averments in the plaint including that the parties were governed by agricultural custom, were denied. It was alleged that the parties are Hindu and are governed by Hindu law.;