JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. It has been found that the plaintiff- appellants have failed to prove that the suit property is ancestral in nature and the gift deed dated 8.7.1952 Ex. D.1/1 executed by Chet Ram in favour of defendant-respondent Lachhmi did not suffer from any legal lacuna sufficient for setting it aside. It has also been concurrently found that Smt. Lachhmi defendant-respondent had contracted Kareva marriage with the donor Chet Ram, deceased and consequential she has been held to be wife of Chet Ram. On the basis of the afore-mentioned findings, the plaintiff-appellants who are collateral of Chet Ram have been held to be not entitled to any share in these self-acquired property of Chet Ram. 2. Brief facts of the case are emerges from the judgments of both the Courts below are that plaintiff-appellants filed Civil suit No. 21 of 1997 on 15.10.1971 seeking possession of the suit land alleging that Chet Ram deceased son of Hansa was the owner of the agricultural land and the plaintiff- respondents being collaterals of Chet Ram deceased were entitled to succeed to his estate after his death as the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Chet Ram. It was further alleged taht gift deed dated 8.7.1952 gifting half share of the property of Chet Ram in favour of defendant-respondent was impermissible being without any consideration and legal necessity. It was further alleged that it was a sham transaction without previous consent and concurrence of the plaintiff-appellants who are the reversionaries of Chet Ram. According to Riwaje-am of Karnal District, no proprietor could alienate or gift his ancestral property during his life time to the detriment of his collateral and reversionary. The mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant- respondent with regard to the half share of the property was also challenged being illegal. It was also alleged that defendant-respondent was not the widow of Chet Ram. 3. The defendant-respondent took the stand that earlier also the suit was filed by sons of Mangal namely Isma and Birbal for possession where the gift deed was challenged and it was alleged that defendant-respondent was widow of deceased Chet Ram. It was also alleged that defendant-respondent was not the widow of Chet Ram. 3. The defendant-respondent took the stand that earlier also the suit was filed by sons of Mangal namely Isma and Birbal for possession where the gift deed was challenged and it was alleged that defendant-respondent was widow of deceased Chet Ram. Invoking the doctrine of res judicata, the defendant- respondent has pointed out that the instant suit was not maintainable as the earlier suit has been dismissed. The locus-standi of the plaintiff-appellants to file the suit was also challenged. However, it was admitted that Chet Ram was owner of the suit property alleging that the same is self acquired property and not the ancestral property. Therefore, Chet Ram was entitled to execute the gift deed. In order to appreciate the controversy the pedigree table as given by the plaintiff-appellants may be noticed as under : 4. It is appropriate to mention that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff Mangal had died and is now represented by his legal representatives. On the basis of the copies of the pedigree table filed by the plaintiff- appellants Ex. P5 and P6 it was found that the plaintiff-appellants are the nearest collaterals of Chet Ram deceased whose estate is under dispute. 5. The core issue required to be determined by this Court is whether the appellant was the owner of the property in dispute. From the excerpt of Jamabandi in respect of the year 1854 to 1941-42 Ex. PW 6/A, the ld. Addl. District Judge has found that in the year 1925-26 area in the name of Chet Ram is shown to be 58 bighas and 18 biswas whereas from the estate he would not have inherited little more than 22 biswas. There was no explanation as to how Chet Ram became the owner of 58 bighas 18 biswas. The afore-mentioned finding has been recorded by the ld. Addl. District Judge in paras 12 and 13 of his judgment recording the conclusion that the deceased Chet Ram must have acquired much more land than his own funds and therefore the property cannot be considered as ancestral. On that basis the property referred to in the gift deed executed by Chet Ram, defendant-respondent, could not be considered ancestral in character. District Judge in paras 12 and 13 of his judgment recording the conclusion that the deceased Chet Ram must have acquired much more land than his own funds and therefore the property cannot be considered as ancestral. On that basis the property referred to in the gift deed executed by Chet Ram, defendant-respondent, could not be considered ancestral in character. In any case, it was observed that if the ancestral property is mixed up with the self-acquired property then it has to be treated as self-acquired property. The ld. Addl. District Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mara and others v. Nikko alias Punjab Kaur and another, AIR 1964 SC 1821. 6. It has further been found that parties to the litigation are not governed by the customs and the decision on the issue would not have any bearing once the nature of the property has not been held to be ancestral. 7. In order to record a finding about the genuineness of the gift deed dated 8.7.1952 as well as the status of defendant-respondent Lachhmi Devi being widow of Chet Ram, reliance was placed on the statement of Lachhmi Devi herself who appeared as DW.8. Ignoring the minor discrepancies in the statement, the ld. Addl. District Judge has held as under : "It is true that the statement of DW8 is not consistent and she has not been able to pin point certain important facts in her life but at the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that she was an old and illiterate lady. The Karewa had taken place in the year 1948 and the gift deed was executed in the year 1952. She was examined in the court in the year 1980 i.e. after 32 years. In this view of the matter not much significance can be attached to the oral testimony of the respondent especially when there is documentary evidence to support the same. The first document placed on record to show the relationship of respondent with Chet Ram is Ex. DW5/1. This was executed as back as 16.3.1948 and Smt. Lachhmi had given herself to be the wife of Chet Ram deceased. The document was more than 30 years old at the time, the evidence in its respect was recorded. The first document placed on record to show the relationship of respondent with Chet Ram is Ex. DW5/1. This was executed as back as 16.3.1948 and Smt. Lachhmi had given herself to be the wife of Chet Ram deceased. The document was more than 30 years old at the time, the evidence in its respect was recorded. The document has been executed on a stamp paper and attested by three witnesses namely Chanda Singh, Chandan and Nanak. Chanda Singh has appeared as DW1 and has stated that he had attested the same while the two other witnesses are dead. This fact itself adds to its genuineness. Ronak Ram DW5 has also been produced who deposed that document Ex. DW 5/A was scribed by Shri Raghubar Dayal who died on 17.11.1977 and was bother-in-law of Shri Ronak Ram. All these facts add to the genuineness of document Ex. PW5/A. The next document is gift deed Ex. P.1 wherein also the respondent has been shown to be the wife of Chet Ram. Even in Ex. P.7 copy of jamabandi for the year 1953-54 placed on record by the appellants, the respondent has been recorded as wife of Chet Ram. Entries in the jamabandi carry presumption of truth also regarding the relationship unless the contrary is proved. It is admitted that the earlier suit filed by Ishma and Birbal (present appellants 3 and 4 on the same cause of action as far as the gift deed was concerned, was dismissed by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.11.1968 Ex. D.3. It is true that the same does not operate as res-judicata but Ex. D3 is the relevant piece of document wherein it has been held that respondent was the wife of Chet Ram and that the gift was a valid one." 8. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has, however, argued that a part of the land was ancestral and on account of mixing up, the land which was gifted must be held to be ancestral. However, incorrect findings have been recorded that the land covered by the gift deed is not ancestral. According to the learned counsel, the share of the ancestral land should be carved out and to that extent the suit of the plaintiff-appellant should have been decreed. However, incorrect findings have been recorded that the land covered by the gift deed is not ancestral. According to the learned counsel, the share of the ancestral land should be carved out and to that extent the suit of the plaintiff-appellant should have been decreed. The learned counsel has further argued that the findings with regard to status of the defendant-respondent that she contracted a Kareva marriage is based on no legal evidence. The learned counsel has maintained that the evidence produced by the defendant-respondent to establish her Kareva marriage is not admissible in law. 9. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that once findings have been recorded by the Courts below holding that in accordance with the jamabandi for the year 1925-26 Chet Ram was entitled to 22 Biswas of land in the ancestral land, no explanation has been tendered to explain that how he was shown to be in possession of 58 bighas and 18 biswas and subsequently jamabandis for the years 1929-30, 1933-34 and 1937-38 continue to depict the same position. In the jamabandi for the year 1941-42, the area in the name of Chet Ram has been shown to be 42 bighas 2 biswas which again is considerably more than his share coming from the ancestral property which was only 22 bighas. It is further apparent that the plaintiff-appellant did not lead any evidence showing which land has been purchased by Chet Ram over and above 22 biswas. Therefore, the ancestral share of 22 biswas and the self-acquired property of Chet Ram has been inseparably mixed up. Once the afore-mentioned findings have been recorded by the Courts below then such a mixed up property comprising ancestral/non-ancestral land then it has to be held that the same is non- ancestral. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Maras case (supra) wherein various judgments of this court as well as of the Privy Council have been followed. Once the afore-mentioned findings have been recorded by the Courts below then such a mixed up property comprising ancestral/non-ancestral land then it has to be held that the same is non- ancestral. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Maras case (supra) wherein various judgments of this court as well as of the Privy Council have been followed. The views of their Lordships have been expressed in para 7 of the judgment which reads as under : "Now it has been ruled in the Punjab consistently that where lands are so mixed up that the ancestral and non-ancestral portions cannot be separated they must be regarded as non-ancestral, unless it is shown which are ancestral and which are not. This was laid down by the Privy Council in Attar Singh v. Thakar Singh, 35 Ind App 206 (PC). It was held by Mr. Justice Kapur (as he then was) in Indra Singh v. Gulzara Singh, AIR 1951 Punjab 345 basing himself upon Saif-ul-Rahman v. Mohammad Ali Khan, ILR 9 Lah 95 : (AIR 1928 Lah 285) and Jagtar Singh v. Raghbir Singh, ILR 13 Lah 165 : (AIR 1932 Lah 85) that land ceases to be ancestral if it comes into the hands of an owner otherwise than by descent. Once these conclusions are reached, it is quite obvious that the decision of the District Judge not to apply the answer to question No. 52 to non-ancestral land was right. It may be mentioned that the answers to questions refer to ancestral property only and this is now firmly established. Infact, it was not denied at the hearing." In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant because it is not possible to carve out the ancestral land and the plaintiff-appellants have failed to prove by adducing any evidence to identity of ancestral and non ancestral land. 11. The other argument that there is no legal evidence on record to prove the Kareva Marriage of the defendant-respondent is also bound to be rejected because defendant-respondent had herself appeared as DW.8 and placed on record a document Ex. PW5/A executed on 16.3.1948 wherein the relationship of defendant-respondent with Chet Ram was described to be of husband and wife. 11. The other argument that there is no legal evidence on record to prove the Kareva Marriage of the defendant-respondent is also bound to be rejected because defendant-respondent had herself appeared as DW.8 and placed on record a document Ex. PW5/A executed on 16.3.1948 wherein the relationship of defendant-respondent with Chet Ram was described to be of husband and wife. The document was more than 30 years old at the time when the evidence in this respect was recorded. It has been executed on stamp paper and attested by three witnesses namely Chanda Singh, Chandan and Nanak. One of the surviving witnesses Chanda Singh has also appeared as DW1 and has proved the execution of the document. DW5 Raunak Ram had also appeared stating that Ex. DW5/A was scribed by Raghubar Dayal on 17.11.1977 and he can identify his signatures being his brother-in-law. Further document was gift deed wherein the defendant-respondent has been stated to be widow of Chet Ram and Ex. P.7 copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1953-54 also shows the same thing. Therefore, it cannot be said that the afore-mentioned documents do not constitute admissible evidence. The document, Ex. DW5/A would be presumed to be executed by Chet Ram. A presumption would also arise with regard to its due attestation under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence, 1872 (for brevity the Act). Section 90 of the Act reads as under : "90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old. - Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that persons handwriting and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that is was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested." 12. In the instant case, the document which is 30 years old at the time it was tendered in evidence has been proved on record by one of the attesting witnesses Chanda Singh DW1 and also Raunaq Ram DW5 who had identified the handwriting of Raghubar Dayal, deed writer, who was his brother-in-law. In the instant case, the document which is 30 years old at the time it was tendered in evidence has been proved on record by one of the attesting witnesses Chanda Singh DW1 and also Raunaq Ram DW5 who had identified the handwriting of Raghubar Dayal, deed writer, who was his brother-in-law. This document is admissible in evidence under Section 62 of the Act being primary proof of the fact proving the relationship of defendant-respondent with Chet Ram. Similarly, jamabandi would be presumed to be correct under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The registered gift deed Ex. P.1 would also be admissible under Section 62 of the Act being the primary proof of the fact under the issue namely the relationship of the defendant-respondent with Chet Ram being issue No. 9. The contention of the learned counsel is devoid any merit and is liable to be rejected. 13. Another reason for rejecting the afore-mentioned argument is that no objection was raised to the admissibility of the afore-mentioned documents at the time when these documents were tendered in evidence. These documents are exhibited documents. Still further no argument to this effect has been raised in the Courts below. Therefore, such an argument cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.