MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - As identical factual matrix is involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two appeals, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. Moreover, since the Courts below duly recapitulated and described the compendium of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, so, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same in the instant regular second appeals. However, the facts have been extracted from titled as “Madan Pal Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar and others” for ready reference in this context.

2. The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the present appeals and emanating from the record, is that Dhian Singh son of Parwara (since deceased), now being represented by his LRs contesting respondents No.1 to 5 (for brevity “the original plaintiff”) filed the suit for himself and in a representative capacity on behalf of all other co-mortgagors, under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the collusive judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 (Ex.P7) passed in civil suit bearing No.71 of 1992 titled as “Om