JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - There was one Parbhu son of Kalu. Mahavir, Ramesh and Dharamvir are his sons. Parbhu was owner and in possession of agricultural land measuring 7 bigha in the area of village Kambopura khewat No. 61 khatauni No. 97 min Khasra No. 1124(3-0), 1125(4-0). In Civil suit No. 498 of 1986 filed by Dharamvir against his father Parbhu son of Kalu, Parbhu collusively suffered a decree against him dated 28.7.86 in the court of Shri M.L. Sharma, Sub Judge First Class, Karnal whereby he (Dharamvir) was declared owner of land measuring 7 bigha against Parbhu son of Kalu. Mutation No. 904 was sanctioned on 27.10.87 wherethrough land measuring 7 bigha (ibid) was mutated in favour of Dharamvir. Dharamvir got possession of the said land. 2. Mahavir and Ramesh sons of Parbhu filed suit for declaration whereby they challenged decree dated 28.7.86 passed by Sub Judge first Class, Karnal in favour of Dharamvir against Parbhu. It was alleged in the plaint that land measuring 7 bigha was ancestral qua them and Parbhu defendant No. 1. They are Kamboj by caste. They are governed by the agricultural custom of Punjab in matters of alienation. As per agricultural custom of Punjab, ancestral immovable property cannot be alienated by its holder without legal necessity and consideration. It was alleged in the plaint that in case it is proved that they are not governed by agricultural custom of Punjab but they are governed by Hindu law even then the said decree is illegal, void, ineffective against the rights of succession of the plaintiffs on grounds viz plaintiffs and Parbhu defendant No. 2 constitute a joint Hindu family of which Parbhu was karta. Land in suit was joint Hindu family/ancestral and co-parcenary property in the hands of Parbhu qua the plaintiffs. Parbhu had no right to alienate joint Hindu family/ancestral/co-parcenary property without consideration, legal necessity and benefit to the joint family. Mahavir and Ramesh sons of Parbhu sought decree for declaration to the effect that the decree dated 28.7.86 alleged to have been passed in favour of Dharamvir defendant by Parbhu defendant was illegal, unauthorised, void and ineffective under custom, in the alternative under Hindu law and has no effect on the right of succession of the plaintiffs. By way of consequential relief, they asked for possession also. 3. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit of the plaintiff. By way of consequential relief, they asked for possession also. 3. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was denied that the land in suit was ancestral qua them and Parbhu. It was denied that they are governed by the agricultural custom of Punjab. They are Kamboj by caste and they are governed by Hindu law in the matters of alienation. It was alleged that it was a valid decree passed on 28.7.86 against Parbhu in favour of Dharamvir defendant No. 2 by Sub Judge First Class, Karnal. It was submitted that this land devolved upon Dharamvir at a family settlement. Basis of that decree was family settlement. It was denied that any fraud was practised on Parbhu or any undue influence was exercised upon Prabhu him by him in the obtaining of that decree. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the decree dated 28.7.86 passed in civil suit No. 496 of 1986 by Shri M.L. Sharma, SJIC is null and void being obtained by fraud and undue influence ? OPP 2. Whether the property in suit is ancestral qua plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are governed by Punjab customary law in the matter of alienation ? OPP 4. Whether the decree requires registration ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not legally maintainable ? OPD 7. Whether the particulars (of) fraud and undue influence being not given in the plaint and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed ? OPD 8. Relief. 4. Vide order dated 21.12.91, Sub Judge Second Class, Karnal dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of her finding that the land in suit was not ancestral property in the hands of Parbhu qua his sons. It was found that Kamboj are an agricultural community. They are governed by agricultural custom of Punjab in matters of alienation, according to which ancestral property cannot be alienated without legal necessity and consideration. It was found that since the plaintiffs had failed to prove that it was ancestral property in the hands of Parbhu qua his sons, the plaintiffs had no locus standi to impeach the alienation effected by Parbhu. It was found that since the plaintiffs had failed to prove that it was ancestral property in the hands of Parbhu qua his sons, the plaintiffs had no locus standi to impeach the alienation effected by Parbhu. Plaintiffs went in appeal which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Karnal vide order dated 15.9.94. Dharamvir defendant has come up in this regular second appeal before this court. 5. Parties are admittedly Kamboj by caste. Kamboj are primarily an agricultural tribe. Agriculture is their mainstay. They are governed by the agricultural custom of Punjab. According to the agricultural custom of Punjab, the holder of ancestral property cannot alienate it unless the alienation is for legal necessity and consideration. It may be mentioned here that this alienation is not for any consideration. Dharamvir is the son of Parbhu. Dharamvir filed suit for declaration against Parbhu namely suit No. 498 of 1986 in which he sought declaration that he was owner in possession of land measuring 7 bigha on account of family settlement and he was given that declaration by Sub Judge First Class Karnal. A person governed by agricultural custom of Punjab cannot alienate ancestral property without legal necessity and consideration. If he alienates ancestral property without legal necessity and consideration, the alienation is open to challenge by his male collaterals within five degrees in the male line of descent under custom. 6. Now the question that arises is whether land in suit was ancestral property qua Parbhu and his sons. In jamabandi for the year 1910-11 upto jamabandi for the year 1930-31, Kalu son of Karma was recorded as owner in possession of land measuring 67 bigha 1 biswa. In jamabandi for the year 1934-35, his sons Sadhu and Parbhu stepped into his shoes in equal shares. There is reference to mutation No. 293 showing Sadhu and Parbhu having become owners of the suit land on account of succession on the death of Kalu. In jamabandi for the year 1938-39, Sadhu and Parbhu sons of Kalu were recorded owners in possession in equal shares. That entry was repeated in jamabandi for the year 1942-43. In jamabandi for the year 1946-47, Parbhu was recorded as owner in possession of 33 bigha 11 biswa of land i.e. 1/2 share of land recorded in the earlier jamabandi. In jamabandi for the year 1938-39, Sadhu and Parbhu sons of Kalu were recorded owners in possession in equal shares. That entry was repeated in jamabandi for the year 1942-43. In jamabandi for the year 1946-47, Parbhu was recorded as owner in possession of 33 bigha 11 biswa of land i.e. 1/2 share of land recorded in the earlier jamabandi. There is a reference to mutation No. 486 relating to partition of join khewat on the basis of some court decree dated 22.4.46. In jamabandi Ex. P3 for the year 1954-55, Parbhu continued owner in possession of land. According to jamabandi for the year 1962-63, Parbhu was owner in possession of land including the land in suit. In jamabandi for the year 1983-84 Ex. P2, Parbhu son of Kalu has been shown owner in possession of the suit land. Ex. P9 is copy of khatauni Ishtemal in which old and new numbers have been given. Ex. P8 is the copy of khatanui Pamaish in which old and new numbers have been given. Land in suit which bears khasra Nos. 1124 and 1125 have been mentioned in khatanui Ishtemal Ex. P9. Land in suit was thus ancestral property qua Parbhu and his sons. Land in suit was once held by Kalu son of Karma. From Kalu son of Karma it devolved upon Sadhu and Parbhu. Partition took place between Sadhu and Parbhu on account of some court decree dated 22.4.46. On partition 1/2 share of land measuring 67 bigha 1 biswa fell to the share of Parbhu. Merely because the plaintiffs could not produce the mutation of succession showing the devolution of land upon Sadhu and Parbhu from Kalu cannot lead the court to the inference that land did not devolve upon Sadhu and Parbhu from Kalu when Sadhu and Parbhu are shown to be holding land in equal shares which was once held by their father Kalu son of Karma. Similarly, no inference can be drawn that this land did not fall to the share of Parbhu on partition between him and his brother Sadhu simply because mutation relating to the partition had not been produced when in jamabandi for the year 1945-46, there is reference to partition on the basis of some court decree between Sadhu and Parbhu. Similarly, no inference can be drawn that this land did not fall to the share of Parbhu on partition between him and his brother Sadhu simply because mutation relating to the partition had not been produced when in jamabandi for the year 1945-46, there is reference to partition on the basis of some court decree between Sadhu and Parbhu. When a property held by father is shown to be held by his sons according to ancestral shares, the property shall have to be presumed to be joint. In this case, Parbhu has stated that he purchased this property. Dharamvir has not been able to show by any evidence that his father purchased this property. In his cross examination, Parbhu stated that he is not aware of the name of the person from whom he purchased this land because the land was purchased 50 years ago. He purchased 22 bighas of land. Dharamvir defendant is mum as regards the character of the property. He has neither stated that the property was ancestral or non- ancestral in the hands of his father Parbhu qua his sons. Land in suit was thus proved to be ancestral property in the hands of Parbhu. 7. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Sub Judge found as a fact on consideration of evidence that the land in suit was not ancestral. Additional District Judge should not have set aside his finding on reappraisal of evidence. It was submitted that Additional District Judge should have stuck to that finding if there was some evidence to sustain that finding. Suffice it to say, Additional District Judge is final court of fact. He had to reappraise the entire evidence. Upon reappraisal of the entire evidence, he could come to an independent conclusion whether the land in suit was or was not ancestral property. On the death of Kalu, land in suit was equally mutated in favour of Sahdu and Parbhu vide mutation No. 293 sanctioned on 20.3.36. In civil cases, we have to go by the preponderous of evidence. If the evidence led by the plaintiff is preponderant vis-a-vis the evidence led by the defendant, court has to act upon the evidence led by the plaintiff. Plaintiffs got excerpt prepared. In civil cases, we have to go by the preponderous of evidence. If the evidence led by the plaintiff is preponderant vis-a-vis the evidence led by the defendant, court has to act upon the evidence led by the plaintiff. Plaintiffs got excerpt prepared. In the excerpt there is a long string of jamabandis both before and after consolidation in which the land once held by Kalu and then held by Sadhu and Parbhu is shown. It may be mentioned here that after khata was partitioned between Sadhu and Parbhu, the land that fell to the share of Parbhu was shown in the jamabandi. In none of these jamabandis is shown that Parbhu became owner of the land through purchase. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Parbhu suffered decree only qua his own share which measured 7 bighas. In this 7 bighas is not included the shares of the rest of his sons. This argument is without any merit. Parties are Kamboj by caste. They are primarily an agricultural tribe. Agriculture is their mainstay. Among people who are predominantly agriculturists, there is a custom which prohibits the alienation of ancestral property and ancestral property can be alienated only when there is valid legal necessity for alienation and the alienation is backed by consideration. 9. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge correctly found that the land in suit was ancestral property qua Parbhu. Plaintiffs suit is, therefore, decreed for declaration that decree dated 28.7.86 suffered by Parbhu in favour of Dharamvir in civil suit no. 498 of 1986 passed by Sub Judge, Karnal shall have no effect upon the reversionary rights of Mahavir etc. after the death of Parbhu. This decree shall not bind Mahavir etc. the true heirs of Prabhu at the time Parbhu dies. On the death of Parbhu, Mahavir etc. who are heirs to Parbhu whether they are male or female can file a suit for possession asking for possession of this land measuring 7 bighas. Till Parbhu dies, Dharamvir can hold any enjoy this land but without any power of alienation. Declaratory decree which is being granted to Mahavir and Ramesh now attaches an embargo on Mahavir to alienate this land by way of sale, mortgage etc. Till Parbhu dies, Dharamvir can hold any enjoy this land but without any power of alienation. Declaratory decree which is being granted to Mahavir and Ramesh now attaches an embargo on Mahavir to alienate this land by way of sale, mortgage etc. On Parbhus death, this land will be available to his heirs for being inherited but his heirs will have to enforce their right for possession through suit for possession under custom. Decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal is accordingly modified. Appeal is disposed of. Order accordingly.