Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for declaration deserved to the decreed in their favour because Babu Ram and father of the plaintiff-respondents constituted a joint Hindu family with them and out of the suit land 1/5th share was separate property of Babu Ram and 4/5th share was ancestral property in the hands of Babu Ram qua the plaintiff-appellants. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondents as pleaded before the Courts below is that Babu Ram son of Tulsi Ram was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land in the jamabandi for the years 1982-83 (Ex.Pl) and 1987-88 (Ex.P2). He died inter-state and was survived by his two sons Lal Chand and Sohan Lal who are the plaintiff-respondents and three daughters Sheila Devi, Usha Devi and Baby who are the defendant-appellants. After the death of Babu Ram, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Samana had sanctioned mutation No. 5126 with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellants in equal shares by an order dated 17.5.1989 (Ex.Dl). The plaintiff-respondents namely Lal Chand and Sohan Lal who are sons of Babu Ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners to the extent of 12/15th share in the suit land and mutation in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and defendant-appellants sanctioned on 17.5.1989 granting all of them equal shares was liable to be set aside. The relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendant-appellants from alienating the suit property in any manner has also been claimed.lt would be appropriate to understand the controversy with the help of pedigree table which reads as under:- Tulsi Ram ---------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Waliati Babu Ram Charanji Lal Hukam Chand Uggar Sain (whose estate is in dispute) | ------------------------------------------ | | | | | Lal Chand Sohan Lal Shiela Usha Baby (plaintiff-respondents) (Defendant-appellants) 3 The pedigree table shows that Tulsi Ram was the common ancestor who had five sons. However, Uggar Sain one of the sons had died issueless. After the death of Tulsi Ham the surviving five sons had acquired 1/5th share in the joint Hindu Family Coparcenary/ancestral property. However, Uggar Sain one of the sons had died issueless. After the death of Tulsi Ham the surviving five sons had acquired 1/5th share in the joint Hindu Family Coparcenary/ancestral property. As Uggar Sain had died issueless his 1/5th share was further acquired by four brothers in equal share. However, the share of Uggar Sain acquired by his four brothers has been considered to be their self acquired property. Thereforee Babu Ram one of the five brothers is found to have acquired 1/5th share from the property of his father Tulsi Ram which was considered joint Hindu Family coparcenary and ancestral property. However, the share of Uggar Sain who had died issueless has been considered to be self acquired property of Babu Ram and his other brothers. On the (basis of the afore-mentioned factual position, both the Courts below have decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. The views of the lower appellate Court is discernible from the perusal of para 7 of the judgment which reads as under- It had come on record that the land was originally owned by Tulsi Ram Tulsi Ram had five sons namely Waliati Ram, Babu Ram, Charanji Lal, Hukam Chand and Uggar Sain. Property held by Tulsi Ram was inherited by these five sons in 1/5th share each. Thereafter, Uggar Sain had died issueless and his 1/5th share in the property was inherited by his remaining four brothers, including Babu Ram in 1/4th share each. Ultimately, Babu Ram had held land measuring 198 Kanal 5 Marias. The share of the land inherited from a brother can never become Joint Hindu family Coparcenary property. The whole share of Babu Ram had been clubbed and the total land had been 198 K 5 M. Out of this land the share inherited by Babu Ram from his brother Uggar Sain will be his self acquired property and the share inherited by him from his father shall be Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property. Under these circumstances, 1/5th share of the total land was self acquired property of Babu Ram whereas 4/5th share was Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property. At the time of death of Babu Ram, there were three coparceners i.e. Lal Chand and Sohan Lal apart from Babu Ram. At that time all three had 1/3rd share each in the Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property. At the time of death of Babu Ram, there were three coparceners i.e. Lal Chand and Sohan Lal apart from Babu Ram. At that time all three had 1/3rd share each in the Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property. Sohan Lal and Lal Chand, therefore, had 4/15th share each whereas Babu Ram had also 4/15th share in the Joint Hindu Family and Coparcenary property. His 4/15th share had further been inherited by his five children i.e. plaintiff and the defendants in 1/5th share each. Babu Ram had also 1/5th share as self acquired property. That was also inherited by the plaintiff and the defendants in 1/5th share each. In this way plaintiff would be entitled to 27/75 share each whereas defendants would be entitled to 7/75th share each. The trial Court had just made it into Marias and had held that each plaintiff had 1427/3965 share whereas each of the defendants is owner of 370/3965 share. 4. The only question which requires determination in the instant appeal is whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for brevity the 1956 Act) would apply to the facts of the present case or the law as applicable prior to the enforcement of 1956 Act would apply. 5. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has argued that the property in the hands of Babu Ram has to be regarded as self acquired property as per the provisions of Section 8 of the 1956 Act. According to the learned counsel the interpretation given to Section 8 of the 1956 Act has categorically replaced the old view that the property of inte-state Hindu after his death would constitute HUF property comprising of his own branch including his sons. He has insisted that such a property is liable to be divided equally amongst all the children including daughters because right of a sonss son on his grandfathers property during the life time of his father which was available before 1956 Act has not been saved expressly by the 1956 Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commission of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commission of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen. He has also relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar, which has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in Chander Sains case (supra). Learned counsel has then argued that the property has to be considered as self acquired property of Babu Ram for the reason that various documents show that he had purchased the property with his own funds. He has drawn my attention to the fact that the property acquired from Uggar Sain has to be regarded as self acquired property and therefore, once the Hindu Coparcenary property is mixed up in the common hotchpotch then it would necessarily be considered as self acquired property. For the afore-mentioned proposition, learned counsel has placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Inder Singh v. Channo and Ors. 2005(1) C.C.C. 138. 6. Mr. S.K. Chopra, Mr. Munishwar Puri and Mr. C.M.Munjal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents have submitted that Section 8 of the 1956 Act does not operate retrospectively and its operation has to be only prospective in nature. According to the learned counsel once the substantive provision affects the proprietary right of a party then unless there is any provision to the contrary expressly making a provision retrospective or by necessary intendment such an interpretation is available the law has to be considered as prospective in its application. In support of this submission, learned counsel have placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Eramma v. Veerapan and Ors. Learned counsel has further argued that the judgment of this Court in Inder Singhs case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would not be applicable to the facts of the present case because a presumption has always been in favour of joint Hindu undivided family property unless it proved to the contrary. In that regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chhote Khan and Ors. In that regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chhote Khan and Ors. v. Mal Khan; Indranarayan v. Roop Narayan and Anr., Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and Ors., and Raj Rani v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and the view of this Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore and Ors. v. Dharam Kishore and Ors. (1977)79 P.L.R. 749. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that succession was open on the death of Tulsi Ram which culminated in mutation in favour of his five sons-namely Waliate Ram, Babu Ram (whose estate is in dispute), Chiranji Lal, Hukam and Uggar Sain. The afore-mentioned mutation has been entered on 20.1.1927. Learned counsel has maintained that once the nature of the property is determined before the enforcement of 1956 Act then it would not undergo any change unless 1956 Act is applied retrospectively. According to the learned counsel only that share of the property which is left by Uggar Sain, brother of Babu Ram, could be considered as self acquired property and not the share which has been acquired by Babu Ram from his father Tulsi Ram. Therefore, the right of sons of Babu Ram as against his daughter would not extinguish on the enforcement of 1956 Act. Accordingly, learned counsel has submitted that both the Courts below have taken the correct view and the appeal is without merit. 8. Mr. S.K. Chopra, learned counsel has then submitted that no such plea has been raised by the defendant-appellants before the Courts below which might have lead to the determination of the question whether the property in the hands of Babu Ram was self acquired property or it was Hindu undivided family ancestral and coparcenary property. Learned counsel has emphasised that in the absence of any argument before either of the two Courts below such a question should not be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court as this question is mixed question of facts and law. He has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code to argue that in the second appeal, this Court should interfere only in cases where there is blatant disregard to the law and a substantive question of law is involved. He has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code to argue that in the second appeal, this Court should interfere only in cases where there is blatant disregard to the law and a substantive question of law is involved. Therefore, learned counsel has urged that this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. 9. To decide the posed question it would be crucial first to determine the nature of the property in the hands of Babu Ram which would take us back to the date of death of Tulsi Ram, father of Babu Ram. It has not been disputed before me that Tulsi Ram had died and mutation was sanctioned on 20.1.1927 vide Ex.P3 in favour of his five sons including Babu Ram. It is thus evident that Babu Ram had acquired the right of succession to the estate of his father Tulsi Ram before the commencement of the 1956 Act. Therefore, the nature of the property in his hand must be regarded as Hindu Coparcenary ancestral property. Before the commencement of the 1956 Act his two sons acquired the right being co-parcener in the property of their grandfather. The law applicable to pre 1956 Act would govern the rights of the parties and not the post 1956 Act. Therefore, it has to be necessarily held that in the hands of Babu Ram the property was Hindu ancestral and Co-parcenary property along with his sons Lal Chand and Sohan Lal and on that basis law in post 1956 era cannot be applied by placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Wealth Tax v. Chander Singh. In the afore-mentioned judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the property which developed on a Hindu on the death of his father inte-state would not constitute HUF property consisting of his own branch including his son. In other words, the sons son would not have any right in the property of his grand father. Once this proposition is clear then the view taken by the Courts below has to be approved because in 1927 when the mutation was sanctioned after the death of Tulsi Ram, Babu Ram had acquired 1/5th share in the property which was Hindu coparcenary and ancestral property. Along with Babu Ram his two sons became coparcenars along with their father. Once this proposition is clear then the view taken by the Courts below has to be approved because in 1927 when the mutation was sanctioned after the death of Tulsi Ram, Babu Ram had acquired 1/5th share in the property which was Hindu coparcenary and ancestral property. Along with Babu Ram his two sons became coparcenars along with their father. Consequently everyone of the three had 1/3rd share each in the 1/5th property acquired by Babu Ram from his father Tusli Ram. However, the 1/5th property of Uggar Sain who had died issueless was shared by surviving four brothers including Babu Ram which became 4/15th share in the hands of Babu Ram and the same has rightly been regarded as self acquired property. Therefore, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that the plaintiff-respondents would be entitled to 1/3rd share in the ancestral coparcenary property and 1/5th share in the self acquired property which came from Uggar Sain who has died issueless. Accordingly it has been rightly held that the plaintiff-respondents would be entitled to 27/75th share each and the defendant-appellants would be entitled to 7/75th share each. 10. Even otherwise no plea with regard to the right of defendant-appellants was raised before the Courts below that might have led to bringing on record some authoritative facts viz., when the plaintiff-respondents acquired coparcenary rights in the property of their grand father. The Courts below appear to have proceeded on the assumption that plaintiff-respondents have acquired right by birth in the property of their grand father Tulsi Ram and became coparcener with their father to the extent of 1/3rd share each. It is now well settled that this Court cannot interfere in the findings of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code unless grave error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice has been committed by the Courts below. Merely on the ground that the Courts would have preferred the other view on the re-appreciation of evidence the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code cannot be exercised. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.