Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- This is plaintiff-appellants’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 4.9.2008, whereby the suit of plaintiff Ajit Singh (since deceased and now represented by LRs) for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land, with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. Further challenge has been laid to judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 8.2.2012 whereby plaintiff-appellants’ appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed.

2. As per the facts in the plaint, the suit land was jointly owned by plaintiff Ajit Singh and his brothers. Ved Parkash (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants) used to cultivate the suit land, as tenant gair marusi without paying any rent. After his death, the tenancy rights devolved upon defendants no.1 and 2, being widow and son of said Ved Parkash. In the year 1982, a petition was filed in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani for their ejectment. However, inadvertently, his daughters i.e. defendants no.3 to 7 were also impleaded in that petition, though they never cultivated the suit land. After filing of the petition, defendants also filed an application in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, claiming occupancy rights in the suit land.

3. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 used to cultivate the suit land and defendant nos.2 to 7 never cultivated the same, being minor at that time. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in those proceedings, defendant no.1 appointed one Inder Singh as her General Power of Attorney, who used to appear on her behalf and in those proceedings, a compromise was got effected and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was given to Inder Singh on behalf of defendant no.1, as compensation, on 9.7.1985 in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani and thereafter, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In this regard, Inder Singh put his thumb impression along with Shri Satbir Singh Chaudhary, Advocate. Since then, plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit land as owner and the defendants had no concern with the same. Later on, a family settlement took place and the sisters of the plaintiff suffered a decree in favour of the plaintiff and other brothers. Thereafter, the suit land measuring 64 kanals 3 marlas was got partitioned by plaintiff and his brothers. The suit land had fallen to the share of plaintiff Ajit Singh. Mutations in this regard have already been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers. The concerned Patwari was also requested to make the entries in khasra girdawaris in favour of the plaintiff. However, he came to know that the entry was continuing in the name of Ved Parkash, father of defendants No.2 to 7, on the basis of which, the defendants were bent upon to interfere in his possession over the suit land, for which, they have no right. Hence, the suit.

4. Upon notice, defendants No.2 to 7 appeared, as defendant No.1 had already died and filed joint written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was one of the owners of the suit land and their predecessor-in-interest used to cultivate the suit land on nominal rent for the last more than 50 years. It was further pleaded that they had no knowledge regarding filing of the suit by them or on their behalf. Thus, proceedings for ejectment and occupancy tenant were initiated falsely only to create evidence. After the death of Ved Parkash, they were in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land, as tenant, which never came to an end. Inder Singh was not the General Power of Attorney of defendant no.1. No compromise was effected between the parties. Neither any guardian of the minors was appointed nor any application in this regard was moved. Inder Singh was never authorized to enter into any compromise o