JUDGMENT :

1. The instant regular second appeal has been maintained by appellant, Shri Tulsi Ram, who was plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff”), but, during the pendency of the instant appeal, he died, now the appeal is being pursued by his legal representatives. The original plaintiff maintained a suit against the respondents herein, who were defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”), for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said suit, vide its judgment dated 29.09.2005, passed in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2002, so the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was partly allowed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 11.06.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2005.

2. The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:

2(a). The original plaintiff maintained a suit seeking declaration that he has become owner of 1/3rd share of defendants No. 1 to 6, by way of adverse possession, with consequential relief of injunction qua the land situate at Muhal Khiuri Abbal Hadbast No. 282, Illaqua Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., comprising of Khewat Khatauni No. 74/70/88, Khasra No. 282, measuring 2-14-6 bighas (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the suit land”) and the contrary revenue entries are incorrect, null and void and subsequent sale of the suit land by defendants No. 1 to 6, by registered sale deeds, in favour of defendants No. 7 to 9, are wrong, null and void, and for permanent prohibitory injunction.

2(b). The original plaintiff contended that the suit land is recorded under the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff, to the extent of 1/3rd share, Shri Chamaru Ram, to the extent of 1/3rd share and Shri Jindu Ram, to the extent of 1/3rd share. It is further averred that the land, prior to settlement operation, and the land falling in the share of Shri Chamaru, had been in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, so the contrary revenue entries, reflecting Shri Chamaru and Shri Jindu, as joint co-owners-in-possession alongwith the plaintiff are wrong. After the death of Shri Jindu Ram, defendants No. 1 to 6, stepped into his shoes, but the possession remained with the original plaintiff. During the year 1988, defendants No. 1 to 6, asked the plaintiff to part with the suit land and allow them to jointly cultivate it, but the original plaintiff did not accede to such an offer. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 to 6 neither raised any such demand, nor took any steps qua the same. Resultantly, the possession of the original plaintiff, over the suit land remained peaceful, continuous, exclusive and to the full knowledge of defendants No. 1 to 6, since 1988. Such possession matured in the year 2000 (May, 2000). Subsequent to the death of Sh. Jindu Ram, the suit land on the premise of revenue entries, vide mutation No. 311, dated 12.07.2001, mutated in the names of defendants No. 1 to 6, who sold the same, through registered sale deed No. 1043, dated 03.08.2001, and No. 1101 dated 18.08.2001, to defendants No. 7 to 9, mutation No. 314, dated 15.09.2001, and mutation No. 315, dated 15.09.2001, were also attested in favour of defendants No. 7 to 9. Resultantly, taking advantage of the wrongful sale, defendants No. 7 to 9 started causing wrongful interference with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land and the original plaintiff was also threatened to be forcibly dispossessed from the suit land.

2(c). Defendants No. 1 to 6 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein they took preliminary objections, i.e., maintainability and cause of action. On merits, the stand taken by the original plaintiff was refuted and denied. It is averred that the possession of the original plai