JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed this second appeal under section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act assailing the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kaogra, dated 6-3-^982, whereby the lower Courts decree was affirmed and appeal stood dismissed. 2. The bone of contention pertains to the agricultural land measuring 57 kanals and 12-1/2 marlas detailed in the head-note of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). 3. In order to appreciate the real controversy arising in between the parties, their pedigree-table is absolutely essential to be detailed which, in fact, is not at all disputed: Chhaju Jawahar (died issueless) Shankar Ram Ditta Bogar Khazana Mehtaba (died issueless) on 6-9-1964. Assa Smt. Kesho (widow) Naro (daughter) Plaintiff-1. Bisso (daughter) Dalipa Plaintiff-2 Karma Plaiotiff-3 4. Mehtaba came to stay as the last male-holder of the land in dispute. After his death the land was mutated in the name of Assa. The mutation was challenged. In appeal the mutation was set aside and was sanctioned in favour of one Shrimati Kaulan who claimed to be the widow of Mehtaba deceased and she also claimed as sole legatee under the Will (D-3) alleged to have been executed in her favour by Mehtaba, Assa also died. After his death the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the nearest heirs of Mehtaba filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs assailed that Smt. Kaulan defendant was not the widow of Mehtaba. It was also averred that Mehtaba had made no Will. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if the will was found valid, it was void since Mehtaba could not execute a Will in respect of his ancestral property. S/Shri Dalipa and Karama, plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 claimed the land in dispute on the basis of a will executed by Smt Kesho widow of late Shri Assa in respect of her rights in the suit property. 5. The defendant contested the suit by denying the averments made by the plaintiffs It was contended that the plaintiffs were not related to Assa nor they were collaterals of Mehtaba. She alleged to be the widow of Mehtaba; that Mehtaba executed a valid will in her favour and that the land in dispute was not ancestral qua the plaintiffs, and Mehtaba and so the suit is not maintainable. 6. She alleged to be the widow of Mehtaba; that Mehtaba executed a valid will in her favour and that the land in dispute was not ancestral qua the plaintiffs, and Mehtaba and so the suit is not maintainable. 6. The trial Court came to the conclusion that Smt. Kaulan was not the widow of Mehtaba ; that Smt Naro was collateral of Mehtaba whereas the other plaintiffs were heirs of Assa ; that Mehtaba had executed a valid will in favour of the defendant and that the land in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Mehtaba. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs had no locus-standi to challenge the will executed by Mehtaba because of the custom governing the parties. 7. The plaintiffs appealed which was dismissed on the ground that under section 6 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, no person was entitled to contest the alienation of ancestral immovable property unless he was a descendent in the male line from the great-great-grandfather of the alienor. Second appeal registered as R. S. A. No, I of 1970, titled as Smt. Naro Devi and others v. Parshotam, was preferred which was decided on August 21, 1980. In the said appeal it was observed that the land in dispute was found ancestral by the trial Court; this fact was not challenged in the first appeal However, according to the trial Court the will in question (D-3) stood duly proved but this fact was under challenge before the first appellate Court which was not decided. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was set aside and the case was remitted to the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala to decide the fact whether the will propounded by Snt. Kaulan was properly executed or not. A fresh decision on the asis of evidence already on record was directed to be given by that Court. 8. Kaulan was properly executed or not. A fresh decision on the asis of evidence already on record was directed to be given by that Court. 8. On remand of the case, the learned District Judge again heard the parties and ultimately dismissed the appeal of the appellants/plaintiffs by holding that a valid will was executed by Mehtaba in favour of Smt. Kaulan and in view of this finding affirmed the decree of the trial Court that under section 6 of the Punjab Act No. II of 1920 the plaintiffs had no locus-standi to contest the alienation of ancestral immoveable property vide the impugned judgment dated March 6, 1982. Resultantly, the appeal of the plaintiffs stood dismissed with costs throughout. Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment the appellants have again come up in this second appeal as indicated above. 9. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and I have also carefully gone through the record. 10 At the very out set it may be stated that this second appeal being under section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, this Court is not debarred from re-considering the evidence with respect to the findings so arrived at by both the Courts below inasmuch as the suit had been instituted on 3-9-1966 prior to the amendment brought in the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1976. This proposition has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. 11. The first point urged by Smt. P. Malhotra, is that the Courts below having found that the land in dispute is ancestral, it ought to have held that Mehtaba could not have willed away the same to Srat Kaulan by way of will, (D-3). 12 In this respect record reveals that the will in favour of the defendant is Ex. D-3, dated 25-5-1964. It was executed by Mehtaba deceased and was scribed by Daryodhan Dass, petition-writer DW 1 and attested by Shri Hardial Advocate, DW-1 It has been duly proved by both these witnesses DW-3 in his statement on oath has deposed that the will was written by him at the instance of Mehtaba in presence of Shri Hardial Advocate and Lakhu Ram Sarbara—Namberdar. He has further stated that the contents of the will was read over and explained to Mehtaba and after he admitting the contents to be true, had signed the same in presence of the attesting witnesses referred to above Then both these witnesses also signed D-3 in presence of Mehtaba The only question put to him in cross-examination about the witnesses knowing Mehtaba personally to which he replied in the affirmative. The statement of DW-4 is also almost identical to that of DW 3 This witness has not been cross-examined at all although opportunity was given. This witness has also stated that Lakhu Rara the other attesting witness is dead, meaning thereby that out of two attesting witnesses only DW 4 was available and he was examined by the defendant. In the circumstances, the will stands proved in accordance with section 68 of the Evidence Act. The arguments that will had been obtained under influence by the beneficiary from the executant and that she had actively participated in the execution of the will and as such the same should be considered to have been executed in suspicious circumstances. None of the above said witnesses have been cross-examined on this aspect of the case. Even no such suggestion has been put to them in this respect. In that view of the matter, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants now to raise these arguments at this belated stage. As such the findings of both the courts below regarding the legality and validity of the will are based on sound appreciation of the evidence. 13. The next argument urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that keeping in view the nature of the land in dispute to be ancestral as per the conclusion so arrived at by the Courts below and that the parties are governed by custom and Sh. Mehtaba having died on 6-9-1964 during the life time of late Sh. Assa, the Courts below committed an error in law by holding that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. Mehtaba having died on 6-9-1964 during the life time of late Sh. Assa, the Courts below committed an error in law by holding that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. It is pointed out that since Shri Assa could impugn the alienation as such on his expiry the plaintiffs being his heirs, are fully competent to file the suit, even if it is assumed that such an alienation could not have been challenged by the plaintiffs under section 6 of the Punjab Act No II of 1920. According to the further arguments of the learned Counsel section 6 of the Punjab Act No. II of 1920 does not debar the female heir from challenging such alienation. In support of this arguments, reliance has been placed on Giasi Ram and others v. Ramji Lal and others, 1969 PLR 996. 14. There is no dispute that the land in dispute is ancestral and the parties are governed by custom. The close scrutiny of section 6 of Punjab Act No. II of 1920 reveals that only a male alienor descendant can contest an alienation of an ancestral immovable property. The plaintiffs are not the male alienors descendants of the common ancestors of Chajju or Assa deceased and as such, have no right to challenge the will in favour of the defendants In the case of Giasi Ram and others (supra), the Supreme Court held that though under the customary law the wife and the daughters of a holder of ancestral property would not sue to obtain a declaration that the alienation of the ancestral property would not bind reversioners after the death of the alienor, yet a declaratory decree obtained in a suit instituted by a reversioner competent to sue has the effect of restoring the property alienated to the estate of the alienor. In the circumstances, the famale heirs were held competent to sue for possession of the land alienated by the holder. Here this arguments so advanced is palpably mis-conceived and falacious. Rather it goes against the plaintiffs in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the circumstances, the famale heirs were held competent to sue for possession of the land alienated by the holder. Here this arguments so advanced is palpably mis-conceived and falacious. Rather it goes against the plaintiffs in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. All, that is, laid down in the aforesaid authority is that after the sale of ancestral property has been successfully challenged by s person duly authorised by filing a declaratory suit under custom the declaratory decree so obtained ensures for the benefit of all the beneficiaries who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased alienor at the time of his death. Female has been given the right to sue for possession of the land alienated by a male holder but only when the sale so made by the alienor has already been declared void in a declaratory decree. The right to obtain the declaratory decree is vested in the male reversioners only and that also upto a particular degree and in no case the female reversioners have been allowed to challenge the alienation made by a male holder. In view of this settled proposition, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the instant suit. 15. The last point urged by Smt. P. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that though the learned District Judge has decided the point on will D-3 against the appellants but that Court has not touched the other points relating to the validity of the will of Sent. Kesho in favour of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 though there was sufficient material on record for the complete disposal of the appeal before it. in this respect, suffice it to State, that Court below has held that will D-3 in favour of Smt. Kaulan is valid and consequently that plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the instant suit. On the basis of the decision on the first point though Smt Kaulan was held to be a stranger to late Sh. Mehtaba, yet she had become the absolute owner of the land in dispute and, therefore, the question of deciding the will executed by late Smt. Kesho does not arise. On the basis of the decision on the first point though Smt Kaulan was held to be a stranger to late Sh. Mehtaba, yet she had become the absolute owner of the land in dispute and, therefore, the question of deciding the will executed by late Smt. Kesho does not arise. As discussed above, will in favour of Smt. Kaulan is a legal and valid will which ensures absolute ownership on Smt. Kaulan and the findings of the learned Court below is absolutely correct In that view of the matter, the other points regarding the validity of the will executed by Smt. Kesho in lavour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 become redundant. 16. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal has no force and is dismissed in terms of the above. No costs. Appeal dismissed.