Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2012 has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shall be referred as in the original suit.

3. The appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed bearing Vasika No. 1986 dated 13.10.1971 executed by defendant no. 2 Ashok Kumar in favour of defendant no. 1 Ajit Singh was illegal, null and void without any legal necessity and is not bindings on the rights of the plaintiff. He also prayed for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit land in any manner whatsoever.

4. As per the case of plaintiff, Uttam Chand was the owner in possession of the land in dispute. He died on 05.07.1969. At that time, the plaintiff was a miner and aged about 7 years. Uttam Chand has executed a registered Will dated 12.05.1967 in favour of the plaintiff, defendant no.2 and their two brothers namely Chander Parkash and Ashok Kumar. As per the aforesaid Will, he had divided the land owned by him into four equal shares amongst his four sons. It was further mentioned in the Will that the land already transferred in the names of Chander Parkash and Ashok Kumar will be considered as joint land for the purpose of dividing the land in equal shares. It was further pleaded that defendant no. 2 had sold the land more than his share in favour of defendant no.1 vide impugned sale deed dated 13.10.1971. He was not the owner of the land measuring 10 K-12M comprised of rectangle no. 7 Killa No. 29. He has sold the aforesaid land without any legal necessity. He was also not entitled to sell any specific killa number without getting the land partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiff came to know about the impugned sale deed in the month of January 2004 from one Sultan Singh, resident of Naya Gaon, who also told him about the other property owned by his father Uttam Chand at village Siwah Kheri. He pleaded that the defendants have played a fraud with him. Hence he filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. Both the defendants contested the suit by filing the separate written statements. Defendant no.1 pleaded that he is in actual cultivating possession of the suit land since the date of its purchase vide sale deed dated 13.10.1971 for a valuable consideration. Defendant no.2 had acquired the ownership of the suit land much prior to the birth of the plaintiff. He pleaded that he had no knowledge of any such Will allegedly executed by Uttam Chand in favour of his sons. It was pleaded that any such Will was not binding on his rights as he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration. Defendant no. 2 was the true owner of the land when he purchased the same vide sale deed dated 13.10.1971. He also denied that plaintiff constituted any joint Hindu family with defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 was the absolute owner of the suit land and had every right to alienate or to transfer the same.

6. Defendant no. 2 pleaded that no fraud was committed by him. He was the absolute owner of the suit land and had every right to alienate or transfer the same. Uttam Chand was owner in possession of a large chunk of the agriculture land. He suffered a civil Court decree dated 11.11.1957 in Civil Suit No. 699 of 1957, titled as ‘Chanderwati and others Vs. Uttam Chand’. Defendant no. 2 got land measuring 111 Bighas 10 Biswas and mutation no. 979 was also entered and sanctioned in his favour on 23.03.1961. The plaintiff was not even born at that time. Thus, he had no right to challenge the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1957. He also denied any Will dated 12.05.1967 having been executed by Uttam Chand. Rather, Uttam Chand was not the own