JUDGMENT : - Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) Plaintiff-appellant Surjeet Singh, who has lost in both the Courts below, is in second appeal before this Court. Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2001, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No.80-NL/13 of 2000, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1999, passed by learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, in Civil Suit No.265/1 of 1996. The parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’, respectively. 2. Admittedly, Sobha was grand-father of the parties to the present lis. He was recorded as ‘Adna Malik’ of the property in dispute. Said Shri Sobha was pre-deceased by Gainda, father of the parties to the suit and one Shankar. Shankar had only one son, namely Shiv Ram, who died issueless. Admittedly, the land in dispute came to Gainda, father of the plaintiff and defendants from late Shri Sobha aforesaid. The suit land came in the hands of said Shri Gainda in the capacity of ‘Adna Malik’, whereas ruler of Nalagarh was recoded as ‘Ala Malik’ in revenue record. 3. The genealogical table given in the plaint reveals that plaintiff Surjit Singh is the son of deceased Gainda. Similarly, defendant No.1 Bhajan Singh and defendant No.9 Bant Singh, the sons, defendant No.6 Smt. Bhago and defendant No.13 Smt. Gejo are daughters of Gainda. Defendant No.10 Smt. Amar Kaur is the widow of Rattan Singh another son of Gainda. Defendants No.2 to 5 are the sons of defendant No.1 and grand-sons of said Shri Gainda. Defendant No.7 Pola Singh is the son of Bant Kaur, daughter of Gainda, whereas defendants No.11 and 12 S/Shri Darshan Singh and Prabhjit Singh are the sons of Bhajan Kaur, another daughter of Gainda. Defendant No.8 Sita Ram is the vendee to whom defendant No.1 has sold the land. 4. Defendant No.7 Pola Singh is the son of Bant Kaur, daughter of Gainda, whereas defendants No.11 and 12 S/Shri Darshan Singh and Prabhjit Singh are the sons of Bhajan Kaur, another daughter of Gainda. Defendant No.8 Sita Ram is the vendee to whom defendant No.1 has sold the land. 4. The description of the suit land as find mentioned in para 1 of the plaint reads as follows: “Land measuring 17 bighas 11 biswas i.e., ½ share out of total measuring 35 bighas 2 biswas, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni Nos.37/58 to 62 and Khewat/ Khatauni No.38/63, Kitas-28, bearing khasra Nos.488 (4 bighas 2 biswas), 489 (0-1 bigha), 554 (3 bighas 12 biswas), 555 (3 bighas 3 biswas), 885 (1 bigha 10 biswas), 886 (1 bigha 1 biswas), 998 (1 bigha 4 biswas), 1078 (4 bigha 13 biswas), 1081 (0-7 bighas), 1172 (0-1 bigha), 1174 (0-7 bigha), 478 min (0-10 bigha), 490 min (1 bigha 2 biswas), 690 (1 bigha 7 biswas), 884 (0-11 bigha), 367 min (0-9 bigha), 388 min (0-2 bigha), 663 (1 bigha 2 biswas), 367 min (0-9 bigha), 388 min (0-2 bigha), 478 min (0-9 bigha), 490 min (1 bigha 3 biswas), 872 min (0-13 bigha), 873 min (0-9 bigha), 872 min (0-12 bigha), 873 min (0-9 bigha), Kitas-26, measuring 29 bighas 11 biswas, and Khewat/Khatauni No.38/63, bearing khasra Nos.1622 (1 bigha 6 biswas) and 1632 (4 bighas 5 biswas), Kitas-2, measuring 5 bighas 11 biswas total measuring 35 bighas 2 biswas, situated in the area of village Majra, H.B. No.97, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, (H.P.), as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95.” 5. Respective shares of the plaintiff and defendants in the suit land also find mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. 6. The case as set out in the plaint is that the suit land was ancestral and coparcenary property of joint Hindu family. All the sons of deceased Gainda were coparceners during his life time itself. However, on his death mutation No.653 dated 27.12.1971 has been attested illegally and fraudulently in favour of all sons and daughters of said Gainda in equal shares. Also that the suit land being coparcenary property could not have been alienated or transferred by way of sale and gift deed etc. However, on his death mutation No.653 dated 27.12.1971 has been attested illegally and fraudulently in favour of all sons and daughters of said Gainda in equal shares. Also that the suit land being coparcenary property could not have been alienated or transferred by way of sale and gift deed etc. and, as such, sale-deed No.457 dated 16.8.1984 executed by defendant No.7 Pola Singh in favour of defendant No.1, gift deed No.677 dated 17.9.1990 by defendant No.6 in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 and sale-deed No.932 dated 1.11.1991 executed by defendant No.1 on his own behalf and on behalf of his sons defendants No.2 to 5 in favour of defendant No.8 have been challenged being wrong, illegal, null and void. Similarly, relinquishment deed No.618 dated 11.6.1996 executed by defendant No.13 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.9, behind the back of plaintiff and without his consent, has also been said to be illegal, null and void, having no binding force nor create any title in their favour. The plaintiff, therefore, sought the declaration to the effect that he is co-owner in possession to the extent of 9/40th shares, i.e., land measuring 3 bighas 18 biswas and similarly defendants No.1, 9 and 10 are also co-owners and co-sharers to the extent of 9/40 shares each i.e. land measuring 3 bighas 18 biswas and defendants No.6, 7 and 13 are also co-owners and co-sharers to the extent of 1/40th shares each i.e. 0-8 biswas and defendants No.11 and 12 are jointly co-owners and co-sharers to the extent of 1/40th share i.e. 0-8 biswas; in the suit land measuring 17 bighas 11 biswas i.e. ½ share, out of total land measuring 35 bighas 2 biswas aforesaid. 7. Defendants No.1 to 7 have contested the suit on the ground that neither Gainda constituted joint Hindu Family with plaintiff and defendants nor the suit land measuring 17 bighas 11 biswas is ancestral and coparcenary property of the parties. It is also denied that Gainda was the “Karta” of the family. It is also denied that half of the suit land was in the ownership and possession of Gainda as coparcener. It is submitted that on the death of Gainda his legal heirs inherited his estate as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The position reflected in genealogical table is, however, admitted to be correct. 8. It is also denied that half of the suit land was in the ownership and possession of Gainda as coparcener. It is submitted that on the death of Gainda his legal heirs inherited his estate as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The position reflected in genealogical table is, however, admitted to be correct. 8. In the replication, plaintiff has denied the contentions raised in the written statement being wrong and reiterated the case as set out in the plaint. 9. The pleadings so come on record have resulted into framing of following issues: 1. Whether this suit land is joint Hindu family ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 and 9 as alleged? .. OPP. 2. Whether the shares of the parties recorded in the revenue record pursuant to mutation No.653 dated 27.12.1971 are wrong and illegal as alleged? .. OPP. 3. Whether sale deed No.457 dated 16.8.1984 executed by the defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of land measuring 2 bighas 4 biswas is wrong, illegal, null and void? .. OPP. 4. Whether gift deed No.674 dated 17.9.1990 executed by the defendant No.6 in favour of defendant No.2 to 5 in respect of land measuring 2 bighas 4 biswas out of the suit land is wrong, illegal, null and void?.. OPP. 5. Whether sale deed No.932 dated 1.11.1991 executed by defendant No.1 on his own behalf as well as on behalf of defendant No.2 to 5 and defendant No.11 and 13 in favour of defendant No.8 is wrong, illegal, null and void as alleged? ..OPP. 6. Whether the relinquishment deed No.618 dated 11.6.1996 executed by the defendant No.13 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.9 is wrong, illegal, null and void?. OPP. 7. Whether this suit is not maintainable? .. OPD. 8. Whether this suit is barred by limitation? .. OPP. 9. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on account of his act, conduct, admission and acquiescence? .. OPD. 10. Whether this suit has not been properly valued by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee? .. OPD. 11. Relief. 10. .. OPD. 8. Whether this suit is barred by limitation? .. OPP. 9. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on account of his act, conduct, admission and acquiescence? .. OPD. 10. Whether this suit has not been properly valued by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee? .. OPD. 11. Relief. 10. After holding full trial and hearing both the parties, all the issues except issue No.8 have been decided in negative and resultantly the Court below while arriving at a conclusion that the suit property was neither coparcenary nor ancestral and rather on promulgation of Pepsu Abolition of Ala Malkiyat Rights Act, 1954, the land occupied by said Gainda came in his hand in the capacity of absolute owner thereof has dismissed the suit. 11. Plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, has questioned the legality and validity thereof in the lower appellate Court, however, unsuccessfully, as learned Additional District Judge, Solan, has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree under challenge before this Court in the present appeal. 12. The judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court has been assailed on several grounds, however, mainly that both Courts below have misconstrued and misread the provisions of the Abolition of Ala Malkiyat Rights Act ibid in utter disregard to the principles of law laid down by this Court. Both the Courts below were, therefore, wrong in holding that the property in the hands of Gainda on Abolition of Ala Malkiyat Rights came in his hands as his self-acquired property. The findings to this effect have been claimed to be contrary to the entries in Jamabandi, Missal Hakiat and Pedigree-table produced in evidence. It has been emphasized that on Abolition of Ala Malkiyat Rights limited rights of tenancy culminated into absolute ownership rights and irrespective of lesser right or greater right abolished by the operation of law, would have not resulted in the change of characteristic of the property held by the proprietor (Gainda) so as to debar his successors to retain the said right and characteristic to their detriment. The said property, therefore, could have not been termed as self-acquired property of deceased Gainda and rather coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family. The said property, therefore, could have not been termed as self-acquired property of deceased Gainda and rather coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family. The Courts below while arriving at a conclusion contrary to it have misread and misconstrued the evidence available on record and the findings so recorded are, therefore, said to be perverse and not legally sustainable. 13. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the rights to hold the property as Adna-Malik under Ala-Malik, where the successor of said right was confined merely to males, had all the incidence of making such property to be coparcenary, properties? Could such property be held to be the self-acquired property of a particular right holder who became its proprietor after the evolution and the institution of Ala-Malik and Adna-Malik by virtue of the provisions of Abolition of Ala-Malkiyat Act, 1954? 2. When the defendants-respondents pleaded the right of the parties to be governed by the agricultural custom, could the right to succeed to the right of tenancy held by the proprietary be governed by Hindu Succession Act? 3. Whether the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 Volume-I SLJ 423 (Ranvinder Singh vs. Raghunath Singh) has wrongly been applied by both the courts below to hold the nature of the property to be self-acquired? In any case where such judgment does not lay down correct proposition of law and need reconsideration? 4. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed grave procedural illegality in rejecting the material evidence i.e. PW-1, the General Attorney of the plaintiff-appellant? Is not the lower appellate Court exceed its jurisdiction in drawing adverse inference against the plaintiff-appellant who himself did not appear in the witness box to delegate his authority to his General Attorney? Could such evidence be ignored from consideration by relying on the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act? 14. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate in support of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, has placed reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Assa Ram (deceased) through his L.Rs. Ramji Dass and others v. Budh Ram and others, 1992 (2) Sim.L.C.177. 15. 14. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate in support of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, has placed reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Assa Ram (deceased) through his L.Rs. Ramji Dass and others v. Budh Ram and others, 1992 (2) Sim.L.C.177. 15. On the other hand, Shri Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants while supporting the judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal, has heavily relied upon the law laid down by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ranvinder Singh v. Raghunath Singh and others, 1998(1) S.L.J.423. Mr. Kuthiala has also drawn support from Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nachhitar Singh and others v. Budh Singh and others, 1971 PLR 536. 16. The law so cited by both sides has even been considered and discussed by learned lower appellate Court also. 17. The documentary evidence in the shape of Jamabandis and Missal Hakiat leads to the only conclusion that Ruler of Nalagarh was recorded as ‘Ala Malik’ of the suit land, whereas Gainda, predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the present lis, as ‘Adna- Malik’. There is also no quarrel with respect to the fact that Ruler had the right to have 5% of the land revenue from the ‘Adna-Malik’ in lieu of the cultivation of the land in question. 18. In Ranvinder Singh’s case (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nachhttar Singh’s case (supra) and also by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Assa Ram’s case (supra), had concluded that in Assa Ram’s case (supra), the law laid down by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nachhttar Singh’s case (supra) has not been applied in its right perspective and, therefore, held that on abolition of Ala Malkiayat rights in a property, the same no more can be treated as coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property. 19. 19. In Ranvinder Singh’s case (supra), learned Single Judge in view of categoric findings recorded by learned trial Court that the property only goes to defendant No.1 in that case stood amalgamated with other property purchased by him as well as the property came to him by way of gift from his mother, lost coparcenary characteristic and as such became self-acquired property of the defendants. 20. If coming to the law laid down by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nachhttar Singh’s case (supra), it has been held that the Abolition of Ala Malkiyat Rights creates a new kind of estate in the ‘Adna-Malik’ and has altered the nature and characteristic of the land in his hands on coming into operation of the Act ibid. Therefore, the land in Adna Malik’s hand was not held to be ancestral property. This is correct interpretation of law for the reasons that the Rulers were sole proprietors of the land, whereas ‘Adna-Maliks’ brought by them from outside and settled on different parcels of land for the purposes of cultivation. The Rulers had also the right of reversion and also a right to receive certain percentage of revenue. Therefore, vesting of ‘Ala-Malkiyat’ rights in ‘Adna-Malik’ amounts to enlargement of the estate and conferment of absolute rights in respect of the land in question upon them. Like Ranvinder Singh’s case (supra), the suit property has been sold/purchased/relinquished partly by the parties amongst themselves and as such on this score also its coparcenary and jointness characteristics amalgamated with the property so purchased/acquired by them and as such the same now cannot be treated to be ancestral and coparcenary. Therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Ranvinder Singh’s case (supra), and also that of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nachhttar Singh’s case (supra). Learned appellate Court has also rightly appreciated the law laid down and discussed the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be said to be legally and factually sustainable. As such, no question of law, much-less substantial questions of law as formulated arises for determination in the present appeal. The same, as such, deserves dismissal. Questions of law formulated above are accordingly answered. 21. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be said to be legally and factually sustainable. As such, no question of law, much-less substantial questions of law as formulated arises for determination in the present appeal. The same, as such, deserves dismissal. Questions of law formulated above are accordingly answered. 21. In view of above, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.