JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - This regular second appeal arises out of a suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff – Niranjan Singh for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring19 kanals 9 marlas, fully described in the headnote of the plaint situated in the revenue limits of village Goh, Sub Tehsil Khanna, and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The Court of first instance vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.1983 dismissed the suit holding that land in question is not Joint Hindu Family ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiff and Kaka Singh (deceased). Respondent No.1/plaintiff preferred an appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.1984 reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Following pedigree table will illustrate the relationship of the parties: - Buta Singh l Bishan Singh l --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l l l l l Niranjan Singh Ishar Singh Kaka Singh Harnam Kaur Ram Kaur (plaintiff) (since pre- (deceased (defdt. No.1) (defdt. No.2) deceased owner of Kaka Singh disputed property) The detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal, as pleaded, are that land in dispute was owned by Kaka Singh (deceased) who was the real brother respondent No.1/plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff and Kaka Singh constituted Joint Hindu Family and the land in dispute is the ancestral coparcenary property. Kaka Singh died on 24.06.1973 and plaintiff being his real brother is entitled to succeed the property; as such he is in possession of the same. The mutation of inheritance, upon the death of Kaka Singh, sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants in equal shares is null and void. Plaintiff is alone entitled to the property because Kaka Singh was not absolute owner of the property and also prayed that suit be decreed. 2. Upon notice, defendant No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte on 04.05.1981. Defendant No.1 contested the suit. Appellant/defendant No.1 in her written statement raised objection that suit is barred by limitation. The limitation commenced from the date of death of Kaka Singh and not from 26.12.1974 when the mutation was sanctioned. 2. Upon notice, defendant No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte on 04.05.1981. Defendant No.1 contested the suit. Appellant/defendant No.1 in her written statement raised objection that suit is barred by limitation. The limitation commenced from the date of death of Kaka Singh and not from 26.12.1974 when the mutation was sanctioned. Preliminary objection was also raised that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Nikka Singh, Major Singh, Daulat Singh and Sohan Singh and the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit as he never objected to the sanctioning of mutation. On merit it was submitted that plaintiff is entitled to only 1/3rd share in property left by Kaka Singh. Inter alia it was also pleaded that Kaka Singh was absolute owner of the property and the property was not the Joint Hindu Family ancestral coparcenary property. Other allegations in the plaint were denied. 3. In the replication plaintiff reiterated allegations mentioned in the plaint and denied the averments in the written statement. 4. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: - “1. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad due to non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the description of the suit land is not correctly given in the plaint, if so, its effect? OPD 6. Whether the suit land is ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary property of the plaintiff and Kaka Singh deceased? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction prayed for? OPP 8. Relief.” 5. Issue No.1 with regard to limitation was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was decided against the defendants. Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.5 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No.6, which is the crucial issue with regard to the nature of the property, was decided in favour of the defendant and issue No.7 was decided against the plaintiff. Ultimately the suit was dismissed. Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.5 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No.6, which is the crucial issue with regard to the nature of the property, was decided in favour of the defendant and issue No.7 was decided against the plaintiff. Ultimately the suit was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge by recording a finding that Kaka Singh became coparcener with Niranjan Singh and Ishar Singh and after the death of Kaka Singh his brother Niranjan Singh will get the property by survivorship under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Hence this regular second appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. At the time of admission no substantial question of law was framed, however, during the pendency of the present appeal, following substantial questions of law have been placed on record: - “1. Whether the brother of deceased who has no issue can claim the property of the deceased to be ancestral property? 2. Whether a person who has no son, son’s son or son’s son’s son in existence at the time when he inherits the property, he holds the property as absolute owner thereof? 3. Whether the plaintiff is barred by estoppel by his conduct and also by limitation? 4. Whether the finding of the appellate Court suffers from perversity of reasoning?” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the land in question belongs to Kaka Singh, who happened to be the brother of plaintiff and appellant/defendant No.1. There is only solitary statement of PW4 and the excerpt issued by the revenue authorities consisting of jamabandis from 1909-10 till 1998-99. As per the revenue record, Buta Singh and Kahan Singh sons of Dhian Singh have been shown to be owners in possession of the suit land. Bishan Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendants, was the son of Buta Singh. Bishan Singh left behind three sons and two daughters. Ishar Singh pre-deceased Kaka Singh and he left behind plainitff and defendants (sisters of plaintiff). In the revenue record, Ishar Singh, Kaka Singh and Niranjan Singh have been shown to be in possession of the land in equal shares. Bishan Singh left behind three sons and two daughters. Ishar Singh pre-deceased Kaka Singh and he left behind plainitff and defendants (sisters of plaintiff). In the revenue record, Ishar Singh, Kaka Singh and Niranjan Singh have been shown to be in possession of the land in equal shares. The perusal of the revenue record clearly indicates that suit land was ancestral and in the hands of Bishan Singh qua his sons Ishar Singh, Kaka Singh and Niranjan Singh (plaintiff). Reference to para 33 of the Illustration of Mulla’s Hindu Law has been made to contend that where a son inherits the property from his father in the absence of his son, son’s son or son’s son’s son, he takes the property as absolute owner and he has every right to dispose of the property in any way he likes. His brother or other relative has no interest whatsoever in that property. Kaka Singh (deceased), who happened to be the brother of plaintiff and defendants, inherited the property measuring 19 kanals 9 marlas from his father Bishan Singh. He was not having any son, son’s son or son’s son’s son; as such he was the absolute owner and it was his individual property. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the brother cannot claim property of his brother treating it as ancestral coparcenary property between them. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that para 220 of the Hindu Law defines the coparcenary and it was further contended that Joint Hindu Family property is also divided into two parts i.e. ancestral property and separate property of coparcener thrown into common pool. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that nature of the property is to be determined in view of the evidence brought on record. In the present case, lower appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Court of first instance on mere conjectures and surmises. When the property has vested in Kaka Singh after the demise of his father, the land ceased to be coparcenary amongst the brothers and as it has come to the hands of the heirs as owners by way of natural succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act it could only be coparcenary qua Kaka Singh and his son and son’s son; as such the finding of the lower appellate Court are perverse. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the finding recorded with regard to the nature of property to say it ancestral coparcenary are the result of mis-reading and non-reading of the evidence on record; such finding can be challenged in the second appeal. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 26.12.1974 and Kaka Singh died on 24.06.1973. Succession never remains in abeyance. The suit has been filed after a long lapse of time on 06.04.1981. Limitation for filing a suit for declaration is only three years and will commence from the date of death. 11. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 12. Admittedly, the parties to the litigation are Sikhs and as such governed by Hindu Law. Firstly, it is to be seen as to which type of property can be said to be coparcenary property under the Hindu Law. It is also to be seen if the succession of a brother opens after his death whether that property will also be treated as coparcenary between mother, brothers and sisters. A distinction is to be drawn between joint family property and ancestral property, which in common parlance is known as coparcenary property and a separate property. A coparcenary property which is to be inherited from common ancestors is that each and every coparcener has joint interest and joint possession therein. Joint Hindu Family property can be managed by a karta, who has same powers which can be exercised by a manager. He is supposed to look after the property with due diligence and care. A Hindu may inherit the property from various sources. It will be deemed to be his self-acquired property, he being a member of Joint Hindu Family notwithstanding. Such property will only become joint when the owner throws it into a common pool and waives of his personal rights i.e. doctrine of blending will apply. In the present case, question of throwing suit property in the common pool would not arise because it was acquired by Kaka Singh after the demise of his father and deceased cannot be said to have thrown his property by doctrine of blending into joint family property specifically when the shares of all the brothers were separately recorded in to the revenue record on the demise of their father Bishan Singh. So the doctrine of blending of the personal property will not apply in the present case as the succession of Kaka Singh had opened and he was unmarried and having no issue. By applying this principle, the property inherited by plaintiff and defendant No.1, being brother and sister of Kaka Singh (deceased), cannot be termed as ancestral property in the hands of Kaka Singh qua plaintiff and his sister. The said property although had come from Bishan Singh to Kaka Singh. It will be deemed to be self-acquired property of Kaka Singh as he had inherited from Bishan Singh by way of inheritance which is evident from the mutation. After the death of Kaka Singh, who died unmarried and issueless, the land in question devolved upon his brothers and sisters in equal shares under the ordinary law of inheritance. Both the Courts below are in agreement that pedigree table mentioned at the outset of this judgment is not in dispute. After the demise of Buta Singh property came to Bishan Singh and thereafter to his three sons. After the death of Kaka Singh, nature of the property is to be determined. The Court of first instance had categorically recorded a finding that property in the hands of Bishan Singh qua Ishar Singh, Kaka Singh and plaintiff was ancestral coparcenary property. There is jointness of the family to that extent. There is no evidence on record that joint family property in the hands of Bishan Singh qua plaintiff and defendants and another brother continued to be joint. In view of Illustration 223 of the Mulla’s Hindu Law, where a son inherits the property from his father in the absence of his son, son’s son or son’s son’s son, he takes the property as absolute owner and he has every right to dispose of the property in any way he likes. His brother or other relative has no interest whatsoever in that property. In view of this, property in the hands of Kaka Singh was not ancestral coparcenary property qua plaintiff. It was Kaka Singh’s self-acquired property. In view of above discussion, the findings recorded by lower appellate Court are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law and substantial questions of law are accordingly answered in favour of the appellant/defendant No.1. 13. In view of above, present regular second appeal is allowed with costs throughout. It was Kaka Singh’s self-acquired property. In view of above discussion, the findings recorded by lower appellate Court are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law and substantial questions of law are accordingly answered in favour of the appellant/defendant No.1. 13. In view of above, present regular second appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Impugned judgment and decree passed by lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the Court of first instance is restored. Decree-sheet be prepared. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————