Sabina, J.

1. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction that they were absolute owners in possession of the house, plot and site of shop described in the head note of the plaint. It was further prayed that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 309/1 of 1986 dated 11.5.1991 and maintained an appeal by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak on 4.9.1992 were illegal null and void. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2004. The appeal filed by plaintiffs was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2005. Hence, the present appeal.

2. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under :-

"Case of the plaintiffs/appellants (here-in-after called the plaintiff) as emerging out from their plaint is that plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 Jaipal are the sons of defendant no. 3. They were members of Joint Hindu Family uptill 1970. A residential house, a gher/plot and site for shop, detailed and described in para no. 1 of the p