Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2014 rendered by the District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2011. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein after referred to as ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) instituted a suit for possession of land comprised in Khata No.1 min, Khatauni No.1 min, Khasra No. 267 measuring 4 kanal and 5 marlas situated in Tikka Anu Kalan, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. and also that the gift deed dated 28.11.2003 executed by one Mohinder Paul Singh in favour of respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant” for convenience sake) is illegal and null and void. Plaintiff is son of Mohinder Paul Singh. Defendant taking advantage of her relationship with Mohinder Paul Singh got executed the gift deed dated 28.11.2003 in her favour. Mohinder Paul Singh had no right to gift the property in favour of defendant as the property was ancestral and could not be alienated in any manner. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. It is denied that the suit land is ancestral and the plaintiff and Mohinder Paul Singh were governed by agricultural customs of Kangra and Hamirpur Districts. It is also denied that Mohinder Pal Singh was not competent to gift the land in suit and the gift was legal and valid. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 12.3.2008 and thereafter additional issues were framed on 20.2.2009 and 10.3.2010. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit on 10.6.2011. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Hamirpur. He dismissed the same on 5.9.2014. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the courts below has misread and misinterpreted Ex.DW-1/A gift deed. He has also contended that the gift deed was executed in violation of custom prevailing in the area and both the courts below have misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence. 6. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. 6. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. Since all the substantial questions of law are interlinked, they are being discussed together to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 9. PW-1 Raman Thakur has deposed that his father had received the suit land from his ancestors and there was no necessity to gift the suit land to the defendant. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the suit land was received by his father from his grandfather Chattar Singh by way of “will”. The suit land was gifted to the defendant by his father as they were in good terms. However, due to differences between them, his father had moved an application mark-A for cancellation of gift deed dated 28.11.2003. He had accompanied his father on 5.5.2005 to the office of Tehsildar. 10. PW-2 Kishori Lal has deposed that the parties are Rajput by caste. They are governed by Jamindari customs. Mohinder Paul Singh had received the land from his ancestors. He has cultivated the land for Mohinder Paul Singh for the last 10-12 years. 11. Defendant Raksha Devi has appeared as DW-1. She has deposed that her father had two sons and his property developed upon his two sons, i.e. brothers of the defendant through “will”. The suit land was gifted to her by Mohinder Paul Singh and after the gift deed; she was in possession of the suit land. 12. DW-2 Amar Singh has attested the gift deed. DW-4 Gurdev Singh was another attesting witness. According to them, Mohinder Paul Singh has made gift deed in favour of the defendant. The contents of the gift deed were read over to him and he voluntarily and in sound disposition of mind signed the gift deed Ex.DW-1/A. The gift deed was scribed by DW-3 Mukhtayar Singh. 13. The document mark ‘A’ has not been duly proved. According to Jamabandi Ex.P-5 for the year 1910-11, Surat Singh was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land. He has gifted the suit land to his son Chattar Singh vide mutation No.49. Chatter Singh executed “will” of his property in favour of his sons Mohinder Paul Singh and Ominder Singh in equal shares vide mutation No. 1280 ExP-12. According to Jamabandi Ex.P-5 for the year 1910-11, Surat Singh was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land. He has gifted the suit land to his son Chattar Singh vide mutation No.49. Chatter Singh executed “will” of his property in favour of his sons Mohinder Paul Singh and Ominder Singh in equal shares vide mutation No. 1280 ExP-12. Mohinder Paul Singh has gifted the land to defendant by way of registered gift deed Ex.DW-1/A. DW-1 Raksha Devi, DW-2 Amar Singh, DW-4 Gurdev Singh and DW-5 Sanjay Kumar have not spoken about the existence of any custom prevailing in the area. The plaintiff has failed to prove existence of any custom amongst the Rajputs of Hamirpur. The plaintiff has also placed reliance on question Nos. 86 and 92 in Middleton Collection of Customary Law of Kangra District. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land was ancestral, these questions have no bearing. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove ancestral nature of the property or any custom, which bars the gift of self acquired property in favour of other person. The gift deed dated 28.11.2003 Ex.DW-1/A is legal and valid. 14. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs. C.A. Muruganatha Mudailiar and another, AIR 1953 SC 495 have held that when the father obtains the grandfather’s property by way of gift, he receives it not because he is a son or has any legal right to such property but because his father chose to bestow a favour on him which he could have bestowed on any other person as well. Their Lordships have further held that there is no warrant for saying that according to the Mitakshara, an affectionate gift by the father to the son constitutes ipso facto ancestral property in the hands of the donee. In other words, a property gifted or bequeathed by a father to his son cannot become ancestral property in the hands of the donee or legatee simply by reason of the fact that the donee or legatee got it from his father or ancestor. In other words, a property gifted or bequeathed by a father to his son cannot become ancestral property in the hands of the donee or legatee simply by reason of the fact that the donee or legatee got it from his father or ancestor. Their Lordships have held as under: “[12] So far as the first ground is concerned, the foundation of the doctrine of equal ownership of father and son in ancestral property is the well known text of Yagnavalkya: vide Yagnavalkya Book 2, 129 which says: "The ownership of father and son is co-equal in the acquisitions of the grandfather, whether land, corody or chattel." It is to be noted that Vijnaneswar invokes this passage in Chap. I, Sec. 5 of his work, where he deals with the division of grandfather's wealth amongst his grandsons. The grandsons, it is said, have a right by birth in the grandfather's estate equally with the sons and consequently are entitled to shares on partition, though their shares would be determined 'per stirpes' and not 'per capita'. This discussion has absolutely no bearing on the present question. It is undoubtedly true that according to Mitakshara, the son has a right by birth both in his father's and grandfather's estate, but as has been pointed out before, a distinction is made in this respect by Mitakshara, itself. In the ancestral or grandfather's property in the hands of the father, the son has equal rights with his father. While in the self-acquired property of the father his rights are unequal by reason of the father having an independent power over or predominant interest in the same: vide Mayne's Hindu Law, 11th Edition, page 336. It is obvious however, that the son can assert this equal right with the father only when the grandfather's property has devolved upon his father and has become ancestral property in his hands. The property of the grandfather can normal vest in the father. as ancestral property it and when the father inherits such property on the death of the grandfather or receives it, by partition, made by the grandfather himself during his life-time. On both these occasions the grandfather's property comes to the father by virtue of the latter's legal right as a son or descendant of the former and consequently it becomes ancestral property in his hands. On both these occasions the grandfather's property comes to the father by virtue of the latter's legal right as a son or descendant of the former and consequently it becomes ancestral property in his hands. But when the father obtains the grandfather's property by way of gift, he receives it not because he is a son or has any legal right to such property but because his father chose to bestow a favour on him which he could have bestowed on any other person as well. The interest which he takes in such property must depend upon the will of the grantor. A good deal of confusion, we think, has arisen by not keeping this distinction in mind. To find out whether a property is or is not ancestral in the hands of a particular person, not merely the relationship between the original and the present holder but the made of transmission also must be looked to; and the property can ordinarily be reckoned as ancestral only if the present holder has got it by virtue of his being a son or descendant of the original owner. The Mitakshara, we think, is fairly clear on this point. It has placed the father's gifts under a separate category altogether and in more places than one has declared them exempt from partition. Thus, in Chap. I, Sec. 1. placitum 19 Mitakshara refers to a text of Narada which says: "Excepting what is gained by valour, the wealth of a wife and what is acquired by science which are three sorts of property exempt from partition; and any 'favour conferred by a father'." Chapter 1, sec. 4 of Mitakshara deals with effects not liable to partition and property "obtained through the father's favour" finds a place in the list of things of which no partition can be directed: vide section 4, placitum 28 of Mitakshara. This is emphasised in Sec. 6 of chapter I which discusses the rights of posthumous sons or sons born after partition. In placitum 13 of the section it is stated that though a son born after partition takes the whole of his father's and mother's property, yet if the father and mother has affectionately bestowed some property upon a separated son, that must remain with him. In placitum 13 of the section it is stated that though a son born after partition takes the whole of his father's and mother's property, yet if the father and mother has affectionately bestowed some property upon a separated son, that must remain with him. A text, of Yagnavalkya is then quoted that "the effects which have been given by the father and by the mother belong to him on whom they are bestowed": vide Yagnavalkya 2, 124. [13] It may be noted that the expression 'obtained through favour of the father' which occurs in placitum 28, Sec. 4 of Mitakshara is very significant. A Mitakshara father can make a partition of both the ancestral and self-acquired property in his hands any time he likes even without the concurrence of his sons: but if he chooses to make a partition, he has got to make it in accordance with the directions laid down in the law. Even the extent of inequality, which is permissible as between the eldest and the younger sons, is indicated in the text: vide Mit. chapter I. Section 2. Nothing depends upon his own favour or discretion. When, however, he makes a gift which is only an act of bounty, he is unfettered in the exercise of his discretion by any rule or dictate of law. It is in these gifts obtained through the favour of the father that Vijnaneswar, following the earlier sages, declares the exclusive right of the sons. We hold, therefore, that there is no warrant for saying that according to the Mitakshara, an affectionate gift by the father to the son constitutes 'ipso facto' ancestral property in the hands of the done.” 15. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 16. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.