1. Vide this judgment, RSA Nos. 3469 and 3470 of 2002 would be disposed of as these have arisen out of same civil suit.

2. Plaintiff Layak Ram filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of perpetual injunction, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 21.2.2000. Aggrieved by the same defendants Nos. 1 to 4 filed Civil Appeal No. 30 of 23.3.2000 and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 filed Civil Appeal No. 41 of 28.3.2001. Both the said appeals were allowed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2002 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Hence, the present appeals by the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 8 to 10 of its judgment, are as under :

"8. Suit of the plaintiff-Layak Ram is that 1/2 share of total land measuring 48 Bighas 19 Biswas fully described in para No.l of the plaint was owned and possessed by his father Ramla, which was ancestral joint Hindu family coparcenary property. Ramla died in 1977 leaving behind plaintiff-Layak Ram, his only son, Smt. Phoolwati his widow and daughter Smt. Daulti defendant No.l Mother Smt. Phoolwati and sister Smt. Daulti, abandoned and relinquished all their rights, title or interest in the suit property in favour of plaintiff-Layak Ram about 13 years back. But, mutation of inheritance No. 301 was sanctioned on 14.9.1978 in favour of plaintiff-Layak Ram, mother Smt. Phoolwati and sister Daulti, in equal, which is illegal, invalid and not binding upon his rights as at the time of death Ramla had only l/4th share. Other l/4th share of Ramla was heritable in favour of his three L.Rs. in equal i.e. 1/12th in each. Therefore, showing Phoolwati, and Smt. Daulti owners to the extent of l/6th was illegal, invalid and not binding upon his rights. Phoolwati has also died. Her share devolved upon the plaintiff and Daulti in equal. It is further pleaded that in order to harm the interest of the plaintiff, Smt. Daulti suffered consent Civil Court decree dated 26.3.1990 in Civil Suit No. 400 of 1990 titled Chanderpal Nagar V/s. Daulti in favour of her husband Chanderpal Nagar defendant No. 2. They executed impugned lease deed dated 7.11.1990, for a period of 90 years in favour of Gordhan defendant No. 3, regarding l/6th share measuring 8 Bigha, 3 Biswas. Chanderpal Nagar also sold l/12th share measuring 4 Bigha, 1.5 Biswas of the suit land to Shama defendants No. 4 and Smt. Dharamwati defendant No. 5 vide impugned sale deed dated 9.11.1990 and further sold remaining l/12th share measuring 4 Bigha, 1.5 Biswas to Shama defendant No. 4 and Smt. Dharmawati defendant No. 5 and Surender, defendant No. 6 vide another impugned sale deed dated 13.11.1990. The plaintiff has challenged the legality and validity of said consent decree dated 26.3.1990, as well as these three alienation and has prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his ownership and possession and also for restraining them from further alienating his suit land.

9. Smt. Daulti defendant No.l and her husband Chanderpal defendant No. 2 filed their joint written statement. They admitted their relationship with the plaintiff, but, pleaded for the legality and validity of the impugned decree, as well as of impugned alienation in favour of other defendants. They also took various preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit in the present form, locus standi of the plaintiff, misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, want of cause of action, estoppel and that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands.

10. Gordhan defendant No. 3 separately, Smt. Shama defendant No. 4, Smt. Dharamwati defendant No. 5 and Shri Surender defendant No. 6 jointly, filed their separate, two written statements, again pleading for the legality and validity of the impugned decree and impugned alienation. They also took sa