The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the valid execution of a relinquishment deed and the application of the bar of estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit, bearing No.40/1 of 2014, before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. In the afore civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed the making of a declaratory decree, for setting aside the deed of relinquishment, bearing No. 307, of, 2.8.1999, executed by Puran Chand, vis-à-vis, suit khasra Nos, and, qua the defendants. The plaintiffs afore suit became dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Sirmour, at Nahan, through a verdict made thereon on 30.12.2006. The aggrieved plaintiffs constituted, against the afore made verdict, of the learned trial Court, a civil appeal, bearing No. 8-N/13 of 2007, before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, through its verdict, made upon Civil Appeal (supra), proceeded to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal and, obviously, affirmed the judgment and decree, as made by the learned trial Court concerned.

2. Against the afore concurrently recorded verdicts, as made by both the learned Courts below, the aggrieved plaintiffs instituted the instant appeal, before this Court. When RSA bearing No. 182 of 2008, came up for hearing, before this Court, on 31.3.2009, it came to be admitted, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the pleadings of the parties and the finding that there was a valid relinquishment deed executed by Puran Chand which was not vitiated as a result of fraud and misrepresentation is sustainable in law?

2. Whether in view of the findings in civil suit No. 40/1 of 2004 and civil appeal No. 8-N/13 of 2007 in respect of the same property the same relinquishment deed that the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, suit was barred by limitation and the decree in the suit in respect of the second relinquishment deed the decree for injunction was not sustainable when the plaintiff was not in possession of the property?

3. Whether in view of the fact that defendant was in possession of the property and the plaintiff not in exclusive possession thereof, the suit for injunction was maintainable and decree is sustainable in law?

3. Moreover, civil suit No. 59/1 of 2004 was instituted before the learned trial Court, by one Desh Raj, claiming therein the relief, of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, being pronounced against the defendants, and, vis-à-vis, suit khasra Nos. The learned trial Judge, through its verdict made on 30.12.2006, upon the civil suit (supra) hence decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. The aggrieved defendants carried thereagainst civil appeal bearing No. 9-N/13 of 2007, before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court, through its verdict, made thereon, on 3.3.2008, dismissed the defendants’ appeal, and, obviously, affirmed and maintained the verdict hence decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit, as made by the learned trial judge concerned. The defendants are aggrieved from the afore concurrently made verdicts, by both, the learned Courts below, and, constituted before this Court, the instant regular second appeal, bearing No. 183 of 2008, which came to be admitted on the hereinafter substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse and based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, more particularly, the basis documents of the title relinquishment deed Ext. PW1/B and D-1 and the compromise deed, statements of the parties and Decreesheet D-7,D-8 and D-6.

2. Whether in view of the fiduciary relations between Puran Chand and the defendant and the lack of independent advise before executing the relinquishment deed raised inference of undue influence, coercion and fraud and the judgment and decree in appeal is not sustainable?

3. Whether the Court below was justified in not drawing adverse inference against the defendant for his non-appearance as a witness and the findings are based on wrong assum