Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J.:- This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs with plaintiff No. 1 now being represented by his five legal representatives (in place of appellant No. 1).

2. The suit was filed seeking declaration against the respondents (with consequential relief for permanent injunction), to the effect that the appellant-plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of 15 marlas of land described in detail in the plaint, situated in village Padli, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat, as per the ‘Jamabandi’ for the year 2001-02.

The appellants are the sons of Wariyam Singh, with both the respondents being their sisters.

As per the plaint filed, Wariyam Singh is stated to have had no source of income, and during his life time, the appellants got their sisters married. It was further contended that on 13.05.1974, the appellants purchased some land out of their own money, vide sale deed bearing ‘Vasika’ No. 160, though the land was purchased by them in the name of their father. That land is the suit property subject matter of the present appeal. The father of the appellants and respondents (Wariyam Singh), is stated to have died on 20.07.1998.

The land was earlier stated to have been mortgaged in favour of Harbans Lal and Ashwani Kumar, for a total sum of Rs. 14,000/-, which was redeemed by the appellants on 27.08.2007. However, as per the appellants, the respondents-defendants, in collusion with each other, fraudulently got a mutation entered in their name on 08.04.2008, qua the suit land, by which they were shown to be owners in possession of 1/4th share each, along with the appellants.

Thus, the appellants also sought that the said mutation bearing no. 960 be declared to be null and void and the respondents be restrained from alienating the land further.

3. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1, she, in her preliminary objection admitted that she and her sisters had no concern with the said property and in fact, admitted the entire claim of the appellants, except to the extent that she had threatened to alienate the property. She also submitted that she had no objection to the suit being decreed in favour of the appellants.

However, respondent No. 1 was thereafter, proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 20.11.2012.

4. Respondent No. 2 filed a separate written statement opposing the suit on the preliminary ground of nonmaintainability and stated thereafter, that their father had bequeathed his ownership rights, on account of occupancy rights in favour of the respondents-defendants.

An alternative plea was taken that the respondents have become owners by way of adverse possession, because appellant No. 2, upon entering the witness box in another case titled Dano Bai vs. Gobind Singh, had admitted the possession of Dano Bai (respondent No. 2).

On merits, it was denied that the appellants are exclusive owners and in fact it is the respondents who were owners, in possession thereof. It was denied that the father of the parties did not have any source of income and further, that respondent No. 2 had rendered service to her father, who used to live with her up-to to his last breath.

It was yet further contended that the sale deed dated 13.05.1974 did not give any right to the appellant and that the land had not been purchased by the appellants with their money.

5. Consequently, the following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, in the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs.

“1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration? OPP

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction, if any? OPP

3.Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD

4.Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD

5.Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD

6.Relief.”

6. The appellants examined three witnesses, of which appellant No. 2 was the first; one Noor Mohammad, appeared as PW2 and Hasnu as PW-3. All th