JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.:- Both these second appeals being RSA No.203/95 and RSA No.208/95 are directed against two separate judgments and decree dated 22.5.1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal Nos.31 of 1989 and 120 of 1988. The appellants in RSA Nos.203/95 are the legal representatives of original plaintiff Smt. Tara Rani @ Taro Devi and in RSA NO.208/95 the appellants are the legal representatives of original plaintiffs Bakshi Ram and Smt. Tara Rani @ Taro Devi and respondent-Omi Devi is the defendant in both the appeals. Similar and identical questions of facts and law are raised by the learned counsel for the parties, in these appeals therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The necessary facts giving rise to RSA No.203/95 may be briefly stated. 2. Plaintiff Smt. Tara Rani filed suit bearing case No.207/86 on the file of sub Judge, 1st Class-II, Hamirpur for declaration that the gift deed (Ext.Dl) dated 10.1.1985 executed by her father Beli Ram land in favour of defendant Smt. Omi Devi of the land described in the plaint situate at tika Nohara, Tappa Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, was void and illegal as the gift was a result of coercion, undue influence, fraud and was not binding on her being the sole legal heir of her father and she was entitled to inherit the land in dispute. She pleaded that she had been looking after her father nicely during his life time who had cordial relation with her. All the funeral ceremonies were also performed by her. She also prayed for a decree of possession of the land in dispute if she was not found in possession thereof. 3. The defendant resisted and contested the suit on the grounds pleading inter alia that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit; she was estopped by her act and conduct and the suit was also barred under order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. On merits, it was pleaded that the deceased Beli Ram was being looked after by the defendat as the plaintiff after marriage in the year 1975 started living with her husband, and was unable to maintain and look after her father. The defendant pleaded that the gift deed was executed by Beli Ram donor voluntarily for service rendered to him by her. Other allegations of the plaintiffs were denied by her specifically. In her replication, the plaintiff denied the preliminary objections raised by the defendant in her written statement and re-affirmed and re- asserted her averments pleaded in the plaint. 4. On the controversial pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 18.8.1987: 1. Whether gift deed dated 10.1.1985 is the result of fraud, coercion and undue influence as alleged? ...OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? ....OPD. 3. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred under order 2 rule 2 CPC? .....OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? ...OPD. 5. Whether the suit property is not valued correctly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ?.....OPD. 6. Relief. 5. The parties went to trial and led their oral and documentary evidence. The learned trial Court recorded findings under issue Nos. 1,3 and 5 in negative whereas issues No.2 and 4 were answered in affirmative. Consequently, the suit of the original plaintiff was dismissed. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs filed civil Appeal No.31 of 1989 before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. During the pendency of the appeal plain-tiffs-Smt. Tara Rani died and her legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record who have prosecuted the appeal. The learned District Judge confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The legal representatives of the plaintiffs - Smt. Tara Rani have challenged the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge in this second appeal and for the sake of convenience the appellants are referred to as the "plaintiffs" in this judgment. 7. The second appeal came to be admitted on 16.8.1996 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Beli Ram was competent to gift ancestral property exceeding his share and especially when the gift was not for the benefit of the estate?. 2. 7. The second appeal came to be admitted on 16.8.1996 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Beli Ram was competent to gift ancestral property exceeding his share and especially when the gift was not for the benefit of the estate?. 2. Whether Beli Ram could execute the gift in favour of the defendant who was stranger to him in ignoring the rights of his daughter Smt. Tara Rani who had looked after and maintained him during his life?. 3. Whether the original plaintiff being a daughter of Beli Ram had inherited his estate under the customary law of the area as also the Hindu Law?. RSANo.208 of 1995. 8. Plaintiffs Bakshi Ram and Smt. Smt. Tara Rani @ Taro Devi filed suit bearing case No.68 of 1985 on the file of Sub Judge, 1st Class, (2), Hamirpur against Smt. Omi Devi-defendant for seeking possession of the land in dispue detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint: pleading inter alia that plaintiff Bakshi Ram was the real brother of late Beli Ram and being a reversionary he had a right to maintain the suit as the land in dispute was ancestral qua him and deceased beli Ram. The gift deed executed by Beli Ram on 10.1.1985 in favour of Smt. Omi Devi defendant was illegal and void and also without any legal necessity as it was made against agriculture customs by which the parties were governed. 9. The defendant resisted and contested the suit in her written statement. She took up preliminary objection of maintainability of the suit and inter alia, pleaded that the gift deed executed by Beli Ram in her favour was valid and legal as she had been looking after him during his life time. In nut-shell the defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs. 10. On 10.4.1996, the learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff and Beli Ram deceased are governed by agriculture custom? If so its effect? ...OPP 2. Whether the land in suit is ancestral qua plaintiff and deceased Beli Ram? ....OPP. 3. Whether the suit is maintainable? ....OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? ...OPQ. 5. Whether the gift dated 1 Oil. 1985 is valid and binding on the plaintiff? ......OPD. i 6. Relief. 11. ...OPP 2. Whether the land in suit is ancestral qua plaintiff and deceased Beli Ram? ....OPP. 3. Whether the suit is maintainable? ....OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? ...OPQ. 5. Whether the gift dated 1 Oil. 1985 is valid and binding on the plaintiff? ......OPD. i 6. Relief. 11. The learned trial Court took up issue No.3 about the maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The suit of plaintiff-Bakshi Ram was found purely speculative as he had no legal interest in the land in dispute as Smt. Tara Rani plaintiff No.2, the daughter of deceased Beli Ram was alive at the time of filing of the suit and consequently the suit of Bakshi Ram plaintiff No. 1 was found not maintainable. In view of the dismissal of the suit on preliminary issue, the other issues were found having become redundant. No findings were recorded on those issues by the learned trial Court. 12. Bakshi Ram plaintiff No. l being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, caried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur who dismissed his appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. In that appeal the legal representatives of deceased Smt. Tara Rani were added as respondents. . 13. Bakshi Ram plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court has filed this second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Bakshi Ram died and his legal representatives have been ordered to be brought on record. The legal representatives of deceased Smt. Tara Rani were also added as respondents in this appeal Along with defendant Smt. Omi Dev, but later on they were ordered to .be transposed as appellants together with the legal representatives of deceased Bakshi Ram as appellants in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, all the appellants are now referred to as "the plaintiffs" in this appeal. 14. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1.Whether Donor Beli Ram competent to gift ancestor property to the exclusion of the natural heir or the reversioner, in favour of a stranger especially when it was not for the benefit of the estate or for legal necessity? 14. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1.Whether Donor Beli Ram competent to gift ancestor property to the exclusion of the natural heir or the reversioner, in favour of a stranger especially when it was not for the benefit of the estate or for legal necessity? 2.Whether on a proper construction of the gift deed of Beli Ram, it was incumbent upon the courts to give findings that the gift had been executed on his own free will and violation of exclusion thereof was estbalished or not? 3.Whether on the proper construction of the provisions of customary law and also the Hindu Law which was applicable to the parties, reversioner and brother or the daughter of the deceased inherited the estate or not? 4.Whether the findings of the courts below can be sustained when all the issues have not been discussed nor findings on those issues were recorded resulting the vitiation of the judgments and decree of both the courts below? 15. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the gift deed (Ext.P-l_ again exhibited D-l executed by Beli Ram donor in favour of defendant donee was a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence depriving the plaintiffs of both the suits from alienation of the land in dispute more especially when the donor was being maintained and looked after by his daughter Smt. Tara Rani and, therefore, the gift was wholly unnatural and shrouded with suspicious circumstances. He also contended that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses who have categorically stated that the donor was addicted to alcohol and he was not of sound mind and capable of understanding as to what he was doing was right or wrong and, therefore the gift was shame and both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in proper perspective. He next contended that on the death of the donor the land in dispute being ancestral was liable to be inherited by all the plaintiffs parties in both suits and according to the custom of the area as well as under Hindu Law, the donor was not entitled to alienate the ancestral property and therefore the gift deed is liable to be held invalid and bad in law on this ground too. The learned counsel has taken me through the oral testimonies of the witnesses and documentary evidence adduced on record by the parties. 16. Per contra, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior counsel contended that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden of proving the gifted Ext.P-1 or Ext.D-1 shrouded by suspicious circumstances or that it was as a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence of the defendant and both the courts below have found that the gift was executed by the donor voluntarily in favour of the donee in his proper physical and mental condition as the donee was maintaining and looking after the donee after the marriage of his daughter Smt. Tara Rani. He also contended that the plaintiff Smt. Tara Rani had chosen not to appear in the witness box to prove the invalidity and illegality of the gift deed as also to establish her right of inheritance. He contended that if it is presumed that she had the right of inheritance, it was her personal right which could not be proved by examining her father-in-law Ganga Ram as her special power of attorney. He also contended that both the courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact and this court will not sit in second appeal to re-appreciate and re-examine the entire evidence placed on record to upset the well reasoned findings which are not unreasonable or perverse on any ground. 17. I have given my thoughtful and anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel on both sides, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff Smt. Tara Rani (deceased) had never stepped into the witness box and supported her claim. On her behalf her father-in-law Ganga Ram (PW-1) has been examined in the capacity of her attorney. According to his version, Smt. Tara Rani had spent money for the maintenance of her father and her relations with him were cordial. The funeral ceremonies were also performed by her. The defendant had never looked after the deceased. On her behalf her father-in-law Ganga Ram (PW-1) has been examined in the capacity of her attorney. According to his version, Smt. Tara Rani had spent money for the maintenance of her father and her relations with him were cordial. The funeral ceremonies were also performed by her. The defendant had never looked after the deceased. He propounded a new story which was never pleaded by Smt. Tara Rani in her plaint that Beli Ram had not made any gift of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant and on 9.1.1985 Beli Ram called them to his house and on reaching there he noticed that Beli Ram was under the influence of liquor who proclaimed that on 10.1.1985 he would execute the gift deed in favour of his daughter Tara Rani. It is his say that at the time of execution of the gift deed Ext.P-1 or Ext.D-1 Beli Ram was about 60 years of age and he was of sound mental condition but when he used to be under the influence of liquor, he was unable to understand what was good, or bad for him. He has admitted that Beli Ram was the uncle of the defendant but not a real uncle. The gift deed was got scribed by Beli Ram from deed writer in his presence and in the presence of Smt. Tara Rani and was also presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration in their presence. From the evidence on record it is proved that on the basis of the gift deed, the mutation of the land in dispute was entered in the name of the defendant. The mutation was entered by Patwari in the presence of Beli Ram who had never objected to the correctness and validity of the gift deed nor to the mutation entry in the revenue record in favour of the defendant during his life time. Beli Ram had died on 14.8.1985 after about seven months of the execution of the gift deed. The evidence of PW-1 is of no consequent to the claim of the plaintiffs that the gift was made by Beli Ram in favour of the defendant as a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence. Beli Ram had died on 14.8.1985 after about seven months of the execution of the gift deed. The evidence of PW-1 is of no consequent to the claim of the plaintiffs that the gift was made by Beli Ram in favour of the defendant as a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence. In the plaint the allegations of fraud, coercion and undue influence have not been specifically stated by the plaintiffs nor PW-1 has whispered a word in his deposition before the Court that the gift was as a result of fraud, undue influence or coercion. The copy of gift deed (Ext.P-1 or Ext.D-1) was scribed b PW-5 Bakshi Ram on the asking of Beli Ram in the presence of PW-4 Satish Kumar and DW-4 Hari Ram. PW-5 scriber of the gift deed in his cross-examination admitted that whatever was stated by Beli Ram he scribed on the deed and after admitting its corrctness, Beli Ram appended his signature in th presence of marginal witnesses PW-4 and DW-3. PW-4 the marginal witness of the gift deed deposed that it was not read over and explained in his presence to Bakshi Ram at the time of scribing of the gift deed but in his cross-examination he has clearly admitted that the gift deed was signed by him after going through the contents thereof. He signed the\gift deed in the presence of DW-3 Hari Ram when Beli Ram also appended his signature thereon. He also identified the signatures of Beli Ram on the endorsement Ext. DA. He admitted that Beli Ram admitted the execution of the gift deed before the Sub-Registrar, Hamirpur in the presence of PW-1 who did not object to the execution of the gift deed in favour of the defendant and presentation thereof before the Sub-Registrar for registration, Beli Ram was in full disposing state of mind. PW-2 Raghu nath has stated that Beli Ram was a pension holder and used to run a video-shop. In his cross- examination he stated that the last crop of the land in dispute was cultivated by the defendant. He had been seeing the defendant visiting the house of Beli Ram at the time of cultivation of the land in dispute. PW-2 Raghu nath has stated that Beli Ram was a pension holder and used to run a video-shop. In his cross- examination he stated that the last crop of the land in dispute was cultivated by the defendant. He had been seeing the defendant visiting the house of Beli Ram at the time of cultivation of the land in dispute. PW-7 Ramesh Chand performed the last rites of deceased Beli Ram at the asking of plaintiff Tara Rani and issued receipt (Ext.PW-7/A) of the articles and cash money received by him from Smt. Tara Rani. Amar Nath (PW-8) issued receipt (Ext.PW-8/A) accepting the payment of Rs.80/- from plaintiffs Tara Rani for cooking the food at the time of death of Beli Ram. The plaintiffs placed on record the date of birth certificate (Ext.P-13) of the defendant from the Govt. Primary School Khatrira (Hamirpur). As per this certificate the date of birth of the defendant was 3.3.1962. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that in the year 1975 when Tara Rani got married, the age of the defendant was hardly 13 years and it was not expected from her at this tender age to have looked after and maintained Beli Ram, and, therefore, the gift deed was not executed by the donor in favour of the donee for the services rendered by her to the donor and thus, the gift deed was shrouded by suspicion. The donor had executed the gift deed (Ext.D-1) on 10.1.1985 after about 10 years of the marriage of his daughter Smt. Tara Rani and on the day of the execution of the gift dead, the age of the defendant was 23 years. It is the say of the defendant that Beli Ram was her uncle and his daughter Tara Rani was her uncle and his daughter Tara Rani was married about 50 years prior to the recording of her evidence in the court in the month of September 1988. As per her version she had been looking after and maintaining Beli Ram till he died and she was in possession of the land in dispute. She denied the suggestion of the plaintiffs that it was Smt. Tara Rani the daughter of the donor who used to look after and maintain her father. As per her version she had been looking after and maintaining Beli Ram till he died and she was in possession of the land in dispute. She denied the suggestion of the plaintiffs that it was Smt. Tara Rani the daughter of the donor who used to look after and maintain her father. DW-2 Mangat Ram has substantiated the claim of the defedant that the gift deed was executed in her favour voluntarily by the donor and with his free will. According to him, the last rites of Beli Ram were performed by the defendant. DW-3 Sagri Devi stated that the land in dispute is in the possession of the defendant and DW-4 Hari Ram the marginal witness of the gift deed (Ext.D-1) has substantiated the factum of gift made by Beli Ram in favour of the defendant. From the entire evidence on record, the plaintiffs have not challenged the gift made by Beli Ram in favour of the defedant during the life time of the donor who died after about seven months from the date of the execution of the said deed. Suit was filed by plaintiff Smt. Tara Rani about one year from the date. of the death of her father Beli Ram. The details of fraud, coercion or undue 1 influence have not been clearly pleaded as required under Order 6 Rule 4 C.P.C. 1 The gift deed was scribed in the presence of PW-1 the Attorney of Smt. Tara Rani and the marginal witnesses of the gift deed have substantiated the correctness of. gift and the onus has been successfully discharged by the defendant with respect to the execution of the gift deed. The allegation of fraud, coercion and undue influence could not be proved by the plaintiffs and as such both the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the gift deed was as a result of fraud, coercion and undue influence. The possession of the land in dispute was given to the defendant and the mutation of entry in the revenue record in her name was made by the Patwari in the presence of Beli Ram during his life time. The possession of the land in dispute was given to the defendant and the mutation of entry in the revenue record in her name was made by the Patwari in the presence of Beli Ram during his life time. The execution of the gift deed was the personal right of the donor and since Beli Ram had not assailed the gift made by him in favour of the defendant during his life time, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the donee had not rendered any service to the donor during his life time. The gift has been validly made by the donor in favour of the donee voluntarily and with his free will and accepted by the donee it cannot be said that the gift was induced by undue influence under Section 16(2) & (3) of the Indian contract Act, 1872 and was as a result of fraud as defined under Section 1 of the Act. The ratio of the judgment in Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co., Ltd. Karnal & Ors.. AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1279 strongly relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in my view does not advance the case of the plaintiffs that the gift in question was as a result of undue influence under S.16 (2) & (3) of the Contract Act, 1872. In Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib & Ors., AIR 1967 Supreme Court 878, it has been observed that law under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as to undue influence is the same in case of a gift inter vivos as in case of a contract. It has further been held that the court trying a case of undue influence under Section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872 must consider two things to start with, namely, (1) are the relations between the donor and the donee such that the donee is in a position to dominate the will of the donor, and (2) has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donor? Upon the determination of these issues a third point emerges, which is that or the onus probandi. Upon the determination of these issues a third point emerges, which is that or the onus probandi. If the transaction appears to be unconscionable, then the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other. The judgment further proceeded to observe that merely because the parties were nearly related to each other or merely because the donor was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise. In this view of the matter, as noticed hereinabove, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that the gift deed was executed by donor in favour of the donee under undue I influence or fraud. The gift deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar who has| issued the certificate of registration duly signed by him and the said document/ is per se admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in the manner provided by Registration Act, 1908. The ratio of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Nikko Dev v. Kirpa 1989 (1) Sim. L.C. 29 is of no help to the plaintiffs in the present case relied on by their learned counsel. In the case on hand the donor had stated in the gift dee 1 (Exts.D-1) that he had voluntarily and with free will made the gift of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant who is the daughter of his brother Narayan Dass in lieu of the services rendered to him by the donee for the last about ten years from the date of execution of the gift deed dated 10.1.1985. It has been specifically stated in the gift deed that he had already given sufficient dowry articles to his daughter the Smt. Tara Rani at the time of her marriage. In the teeth of the overwhelming evidence led by the defendant both the courts below have rightly held that the gift deed was not as a result of fraud, undue influence or coercion and the document of gift deed has been found valid and proper. I find no cogent reason to differ with the finding and reasoning recorded by both the courts below which call for interference in this appeal. I find no cogent reason to differ with the finding and reasoning recorded by both the courts below which call for interference in this appeal. The 5 plaintiffs have failed to establish that the parties were governed by custom ; under which the donor could not alienate the agriculture land and as such, their claim has been rightly rejected by the courts below. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to prove the specific custom prevailing in the area which they have miserably failed, therefore I find no merit in the contention made on their behalf by their learned counsel. 18. The suit of the plaintiff Bakshi Ram which is the subject matter of second appeal No.208/95 was dismissed by the courts below on the ground of its non-maintainability. The admitted facts are that Beli Ram donor had no male issue and during his life time he got his only daughter Smt. Tara Rani, married in the year 1975. he had made a gift of his share in favour of the defendant on 10.1.1985. Bakshi Ram brother of Beli Ram filed suit against, both donor and the donee for possession of the land in dispute being nearest reversioner of Beli Ram. Beli Ram during the pendency of the suit died on 14.8.1985 with the result that his daughter Smt. Tara Rani was impleaded as party defendant in place of deceased Beli Ram, and later on she was transposed as plaintiff No.2 with Bakshi Ram plaintiff as per order of the Court. The learned trial Court without recording the evidence of the parties decided issue No.3 as preliminary issue against Bakshi Ram plaintiff now represented by his legal representatives in this appeal after his death, holding that the suit of Bakshi Ram was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs in this appeal contended that under Kangra Customary Law male holder of the ancestral property was debarred from alienating the same in any manner under the Punjab Customs (power to contest) Act, 1920, Females have no right to contest an alienation of the ancestral property and therefore, Beli Ram donor was not competent to alienate the ancestral property in favour of the defendant as it was without any legal necessity. From the reading of the contents of the gift deed (Ext.P-1 or Ext.D-1) it is plain and clear that the donor had gifted the share of his property to the defendant out of the large extent of land mentioned in the gift deed. The plaintiffs have not brought on record mutation of inheritance to prove that the land in dispute was ancestral property inherited from common ancestor by the donor and Bakshi Ram original plaintiff. Even if it is assumed though not proved by the plaintiffs that the land in dispute was ancestral property in the hands of donor Beli Ram or it originally obelonged to his ancestors yet Beli Ram having no male issue and there was no surviving male member of his family, be it a descendant or otherwise, who could take the property by survivorship, then on his death his daughter Tara Rani would have been entitled to inherit the property held by donor Beli Ram in preference to his collaterals as regards them the property was not ancestral property at all. Admittedly, the donor has no son, sons son, or sons sons son in existence at the time when the donor inherited the land in dispute. He held the land in dispute as absolute owner thereof and he could deal with it as he thought proper and reasonable. In his suit, Bakshi Ram plaintiff as a reversioner had sought the decree for possession even during the life time of the alienee, but as a matter of fact, the right to enjoy the land in dispute had remained with the alienee during his life time. The first Appellate Court is right in holding that Bakshi Ram plaintiff at the best could be called as presumptive reversioner and his suit could be called at the best, a suit for declaration that the alienation made by donor Beli Ram by way of gift deed in favour of defendant Smt. Omi Devi could not affect his reversioners rights at the time of succession opening out. The decree sought for in the present suit cannot pass a title to the presumptive reversioner nor it creates any right in him in the property alienated, because the title still remains with the alienee. During the pendency of the suit filed by Bakshi Ram plaintiff, the succession had opened on 14.8.1985 when alienee Beli Ram died. The decree sought for in the present suit cannot pass a title to the presumptive reversioner nor it creates any right in him in the property alienated, because the title still remains with the alienee. During the pendency of the suit filed by Bakshi Ram plaintiff, the succession had opened on 14.8.1985 when alienee Beli Ram died. Had he not died, no decree for possession could be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and since the defendant alienee had died, the very purpose of the suit filed by the plaintiffs Bakshi Ram and Smt. Tara Rani had failed and even after the death of the alienee, the decree for possession could not have been passed in favour of Bakshi Ram plaintiff as there was no declaratory decree as aforesaid holding him reversioner and the gift being void qua his rights. The estate in that event, if the alienee died intestate would devolve on his statutotry heir. Both the courts below have rightly held that Smt. Tara Rani being only daughter of donor Beli Ram was the first class heir and plaintiff Bakshi Ram fell under the category of second class heir, thus, he has no preferental rights of succession over Smt. Tara Rani as he was merely a speculative heir qua the estate of donor Beli Ram. Bakshi Ram plaintiff was not the heir of the land in dispute validly gifted to the donee by the donor who could have been succeeded to the estate of the deceased. Smt. Tara Rani was also not entitled to succeed to the property so gifted. In the facts and circumstances of the case both the courts below have rightly decided issue no.3 as preliminary issue and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as not maintainable. 19. In The Madras State Bhudan Yagna Board Madurai v. Subramania Athithan & Ors., AIR 1973 Madras 277 the learned Judges have held that under Section 13 of Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956) a gift by a manager of a joint property for pious purpose cannot extend to gift inter vivos of undivided share. 19. In The Madras State Bhudan Yagna Board Madurai v. Subramania Athithan & Ors., AIR 1973 Madras 277 the learned Judges have held that under Section 13 of Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956) a gift by a manager of a joint property for pious purpose cannot extend to gift inter vivos of undivided share. In Brij Lai v. Baksfii Ram, AIR 1973 H.P.4, the learned Judges have held that a declarartory decree obtained by reversioners challenging the alienation by a collateral of the ancestral property ensures for the benefit of the entire reversionarey body and the nearest heir to the alienor on the date of his death who is entitled to succeed will get the benefit of that decree. In Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh & Ors. v. Mallappa Chanbasappa and another, AIR 1964 Supreme court 510, their Lordships have held that gift to a stranger of joint family property by Manager of joint family put of love and affection is void as not being for pious purposes under Hindu Law. In Thimmaiah & Ors. v. Ningamma and another, 2000 (7) SCC 409, their Lordships have held that under the proviso to S.6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the interest in coparacenary property of a deceased leaving female Class I heirs cannot pass by survivorship at all, and under S.4 the Act has overriding effect over any law governing Hindus which is inconsistent therewith. The ratio of the above said judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is not attracted in the facts and circumstances as narrated above in the present case. Both the courts below have rightly held that the suit of Bakshi Ram and Smt. Tara Rani plaintiffs was not maintainable for the possession of the land in dispute as reversioners. The concurret findings recorded by both the courts below cannot be found unreasonable or perverse to call for interference in this second appeal and also not patently contrary to law declared by the apex Court. In State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (Dead) through His LRs., 2000 (5) SCC 652 it has been held that the findings based on surmises and conjecture or perverse finding not based on legally acceptable evidence and which are patently contrary to law declared by the Supreme Court cannot have any impunity from interference in the hands of the appellate court in the second appeal under Section 100 CPC. In Saraswathi and another v. S. Ganapathy and another 2001 (4) SCC 694 it has been held that if concurrent finding of fact are contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court is competent to interfere with such finding in second appeal under S.I00 CPC. There cannot be any controversy about the law laid down by the apex court in those judgments. But, there is no such infirmity in the judgments and decre of the cours below in these appeals. 20. The plaintiffs in RSA No.208 of 1995 have filed civil miscellaneous application No.361/2000 under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC seeking for initiating action for disobedience/breach of injunction order passed against the respondent-non applicant No. 1 by this court dated 23.6.1995 directing the parties to maintain status quo and Smt. Omi Devi was restrained to sell transfer, alienate or encumber the suit property in any manner till further orders. The interim order came to be confirmed on 7.4.1995 after the opposite party filed reply and her learned counsel was heard. In this application, the plaintiffs-applicants have made Smt. Omi Devi, Baldev Singh and Amar Nath Verma, Naib Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar, Hamirpur party respondents. The allegations of the applicants-plaintiffs contained in this application are that the respondents were served with the copy of the injunction order passed by this Court and respondent No. 1 Smt. Omi Devi was specifically requested to adhere to and obey the said orders in letter and spirt. But despite the service of the notice of the stay order, respondent Omi Devi openly proclaimed that she did not care for the orders of the Court and would sell the property as and when she wanted and would also change the nature of the land in dispute. She subsequently sold a portion of the land in dispute to respondent No.2 Baldev Singh by registered sale deed dated 10.6.1999 copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-l to the application and respondent No.3 Shri Amar Nath Verma, Naib-Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar was served with a notice dated 24.3.2000 bringing to his knowledge the stay order of this Court but he registered the sale deed in utter violation of order of this Court. 21. In response to the said application, respondent No. l Smt. Omi Devi, in her reply has admitted that the exparte interim order dated 23rd June, 1995 was confirmed by the Court on 7th April, 1997. 21. In response to the said application, respondent No. l Smt. Omi Devi, in her reply has admitted that the exparte interim order dated 23rd June, 1995 was confirmed by the Court on 7th April, 1997. She has denied the receipt of the copy of the order of this Court. She has also denied that the plaintiffs-applicants had made any request to her not to sell or alienate the land in dispute. She denied the allegation of the applicants that she openly proclaimed that she did not care for the orders of the Court. However she has admitted having sold 0-7 marlas of land for Rs.2000/- on 1 Oth June, 1999 to respondent No. 1 Baldev Singh. She submitted that she is an illiterate lady and was not aware about true import of the orders passed by this Court. She pleaded that since respondent No.2 Baldev Singh had encroached upon the land comprised in khasra No.69 adjoining to his house on which he has been stacking stones etc. and on the asking of respondent Baldev Singh she has sold that portion to Baldev Singh under bonafide belief that there was no embargo on her right to sell such property being absolute owner thereof on the basis of the gift made by the donor in her favour many years back. She tendered her un-qualified apology to this Court if she has committed any breach of the orders of this Court under bonafide belief. She also stated that she has no intention to change the nature of the land and had she been fully aware of the implication of the orders of this Court she would not have made sale of the said property and the sale deed was executed by her absolutely in good faith and in bonafide manner. 22. Respondent Baldev Singh has stated that the present application is not maintainable as he is not party in the appeal. His defence is that he is not aware of any order passed by this Court and he has purchased the land as a bonafide purchaser after due inquiry from the revenue record. Respondent No.3 Amar Nath Verma Naib-Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar, Hamirpur has admitted the registration of the sale deed and mutation of the sold land in favour of Baldev Singh. His defence is that he is not aware of any order passed by this Court and he has purchased the land as a bonafide purchaser after due inquiry from the revenue record. Respondent No.3 Amar Nath Verma Naib-Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar, Hamirpur has admitted the registration of the sale deed and mutation of the sold land in favour of Baldev Singh. He submitted that as soon as he came to know about the stay order of this Court, he sought the permission of the Collector and thereafter the mutation of the sale has been reviewed/rejected by him. He submitted that the orders of this Court was never brought to his notice before registration of the sale deed and he bonafidely registered the sale deed in the discharge of the official duties. It is not in dispute that the sale deed was registered on 10.6.1999, whereas the notice of the stay order was sent to the Sub-Registrar by the applicants on 23.4.2000 and immediately thereafter he has reviewed/rejected the mutation qua the sale in question entered in favour of Baldev Singh respondent No.2. He also submitted that once the sale deed has been registered the Sub-Registrar becomes functus officio and has no power to cancel the sale deed which can only be done by the competent court of law. He has denied the allegations of the applicants about disobedience of the stay order by him passed by this Court. He also tendered un-conditional apology if this Court finds that he has in any way disobeyed the stay order wilfully or intentionally. 23. The applicants have filed their rejoinder to the replies of the of the respondents and reiterated their stand taken in the application. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 24. It is not in dispute that respondent Smt. Omi Devi has sold 0-7 marlas of land out of Khatauni No. 104 min. Khasra No.69 to respondent No.2 Baldev Singh vide sale deed dated 10.6.1999 registered by Sub-Registrar respondent No. 3 on the same day. From the misal Haquiat for the year 1990-91 (Annexure A-2) 0-7 marla of land was sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed out of Khasra No.69 (old 58) and this khasra does not find incorporated in plaint of Bakshi Ram (deceased) and as such not the subject matter of his suit. From the misal Haquiat for the year 1990-91 (Annexure A-2) 0-7 marla of land was sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed out of Khasra No.69 (old 58) and this khasra does not find incorporated in plaint of Bakshi Ram (deceased) and as such not the subject matter of his suit. The ex-party interim order was passed by this Court on 23.6.1995 which was later on confirmed on 7.4.1997 in the presence of the learned vice counsel for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. l admittedly sold 0-7 marlas of land out of khasra No.69 to respondent No. 2 after the interim order was made absolute by this Court as respondent No. 2 had encroached upon this parcel of land much earlier to the stay order. The applicants have not specifically stated the date and month when the stay order was brought to the notice of respondent No. 1. However, it is no doubt true that the interim order was in the knowledge of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 when it was subsequently confirmed in his presence on 7.4.1997. From the record it is not proved by the applicants that the respondent No. 1 and 2 have wilfully disobeyed the stay orders of this Court. So far respondent No. 3 Sub-Registrar is concerned, it is the case of the applicants themselves that notice of the stay order was sent to him on 24.3.2000 whereas the sale deed was registered by him on 10.6.1999 and before 24.3.2000, in my view, respondent No. 3 had no knowledge about the stay order passed by this Court. On receipt of the notice, he has immediately taken proceedings for review of the mutation and, therefore, it cannot be said that any of the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court as alleged by the applicants. Respondents 1 and 3 have also tendered un-qualified apology which is also accepted. All the respondents have acted bonafidely without showing any disrespect or intention to disobey the stay order. The ratio of the judgments in The State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari AIR 1961 Supreme Court 221, Sheobrich Singh v. Basqit Singh & Ors. AIR 1957 Patna 73, Mst Manmati Kuer v. Ramgopal Singh AIR 1976 Patna 240, Kapildeo Upadhya & Ors. The ratio of the judgments in The State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari AIR 1961 Supreme Court 221, Sheobrich Singh v. Basqit Singh & Ors. AIR 1957 Patna 73, Mst Manmati Kuer v. Ramgopal Singh AIR 1976 Patna 240, Kapildeo Upadhya & Ors. v. Raghunath Pandey and another AIR 1978 Patna 212 and Kochira Krishnan v. Joseph Desouza MR 1986 Kerala 63, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as in all those cases the opposite parties were found having dis-obeyed the injunction order wilfully by giving their own interpretation to the import and substance of the interim order passed by the courts. In this view of the matter, I do not find any cogent reason to proceed against the respondents under 0.39 R.2-A C.P.C. as none of them has wilfully or intentionally disobeyed the stay order. 25. No other point has been urged by4he-tearfied counsel on either side. 26. For the above-said reasons, both die appeals are dismissed. CMP N6.361/2000 is also rejected. Stay order shall stand vacated. Any other miscellaneous application pending shall also stand disposed of. Costs on parties. -