Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This appeal has been filed by the three defendants in a suit instituted by the two respondents herein (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”), seeking therein a decree of declaration under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, that they (plaintiffs) are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 8 kanals (fully described in the head note of the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Amritsar) and that the entry in the revenue record, i.e. the Jamabandi for the year 1980-81, showing the first appellant herein, Lajya Wati (defendant no.1) to be the owner of a 1/4th share therein and defendant no.2 to be the owner of a 5/8th share, is illegal and void and even the mutation bearing no.1769, entered on the approval of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amritsar, on 23.09.1983, is also illegal and void and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs. (Invocation of S. 45 of the Act of 1887 is in the context of the entry in the revenue record.)

The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge; however, the appeal filed by them was allowed by the first appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Amritsar) and the suit decreed in their favour.

Hence, this second appeal filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”).

2. The facts of the case are being taken from the judgments of the learned Courts below, as per which the plaintiffs contended that the first plaintiff, Surat Singh, along with the first defendant Lajya Wati (present appellant no.1), and one Mehnga Ram, husband of defendant no.2 and father of defendant no.3, had purchased the suit land bearing killa no.91/10, comprising 8 kanals, from one Sahib Singh, on 12.10.1960. Plaintiff Surat Singh and Lajya Wati had purchased a 1/4th share each in the suit land, with the remaining half share having been purchased by Mehnga Ram. All the vendees are also stated to have taken possession of the suit land.

Subsequently, Mehnga Ram is stated to have sold an area of 36 kanals, including the 8 kanals constituting the suit land, to the plaintiffs, vide a sale-deed dated 14.02.1961, for a consideration of Rs.1500/-, after which the plaintiffs mortgaged the said land to one Balwinder Singh on 1.05.1970, also giving him possession of the said land.

The mortgage is stated to have been thereafter redeemed by the plaintiffs after a civil litigation with Balwinder Singh.

3. On the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiffs instituted the suit on 09.02.1984, claiming therein that they had become owners of the disputed 8 kanals that constitute the suit land, vide the afore-mentioned two sale-deeds dated 12.10.1960 and 14.02.1961; and in the alternative, pleading that they had become owners thereof by way of adverse possession.

4. Notice having been issued, the defendants filed a common written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and “also challenged the validity of the sale-deed by Mehnga Ram in their favour” (as per the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge), on the ground that the full consideration was not paid. (However, as per learned counsel appearing for the parties before this Court now, no counter claim was filed).

5. On the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Sub-Judge:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of suit land vide sale deed dated 14.2.1961 and 12.10.1960 of Khasra no.91/10 (8-0), if so its effect? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs adversely hold the property? If so its effect? OPP

3. Whether mutation No.1769 was illegal, void and without justification? OPP

4. Whether receipt of payment of Rs.700/- is a forged document? OPP

5. What is the effect of civil court decree on this suit? OPP

6. Relief.”

6. Taking up all the issues together, the learned Sub-Judge found that as regards the purchase of 15 kanals and 7 marlas of land, including the disputed 8 kanals, the purchase from Sahib Singh by