As per case facts, the plaintiff challenged a collusive decree that transferred ancestral land from his father to Hardev Kaur, who claimed to be his father's wife. The plaintiff contended ... that the land was joint Hindu family property and Hardev Kaur was not legally married to his father at the time of the decree. The Trial Court upheld the plaintiff's claim, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, leading to these second appeals. The question arose whether the suit land was coparcenary property and if the decree was obtained by fraud due to misrepresentation of marital status. Finally, the Court found that the First Appellate Court misread and ignored vital evidence, including defendant's admissions, proving the land's ancestral nature. Hardev Kaur was not legally married to the father at the time of the decree, and the "Panchayati divorce" had no legal standing. The decree was collusive and based on misrepresentation, making the transfer of ancestral property without legal necessity unsustainable. The plaintiff, as a coparcener, had the right to challenge this alienation.