will be his (Baldev’s) ancestral property; meaning thereby the appellants and the respondents herein have acquired interest therein by birth as per Para No.223 of Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla as contained in XII Joint Hindu Family Coparceners and Coparcenary Property - Mitakshara Law. At the same time, Para No.223 of Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla as contained in XII Joint Hindu Family Coparceners and Coparcenary Property - Mitakshara Law further provides that “ a person inheriting property from his three immediate paternal ancestors holds it, and must hold it, in coparcenary with his sons, son’s sons, and son’s son’s sons, but as regards other relations, he holds it, and is entitled to hold it, as his absolute property. The result is that if a person inheriting property from another one of his three immediate paternal ancestors has no son, son’s son or son’s son’s son, the property is his absolute property and no relations of his are entitled to any interest in it in his life time.” Thus, the ½ share of Bhairam in the suit land, which was inherited by Baldev after the death of his brother Bhairam, was his (Baldev’s) absolute property, with which he could deal with in the manner he liked. However, Baldev could not alienate the share of the appellants in the suit land. In this view of the matter, Baldev was not competent to alienate the whole of the suit land including the share of the appellants in it by way of suffering a consent decree in Civil Suit No.512 decided on 28.9.1989 in favour of his two sons i.e the respondents herein. The lower appellate Court was, thus, justified in modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent quoted above.
