The main legal point established in the judgment is the misreading and misconstruing of evidence and legal principles by the lower courts, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the decreeing of the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Present appeal, at the instance of an unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below, whereby suit of plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed by the learned trial court and was upheld by the learned first appellate court.

2. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in the impugned judgment, are that Harpal Singh had initially filed a suit against his mother Harnam Kaur and his sister Pritam Kaur, but when during the pendency of the suit Harnam Kaur died, the other two sisters i.e. Rajinder Kaur and Balwant Kaur were impleaded as her legal representatives.

3. The suit land was claimed as exclusive ownership of the plaintiff and it was asserted that the mother got mutation of one half share of the land sanctioned in her name on the basis of an alleged gift deed made by the plaintiff in her favour in the year 1955. Harnam Kaur had thereafter executed two sale deeds, on 19th of July, 1978 and 17th of August, 1978 by which she sold her one half share of land to Pritam Kaur a daughter. The plaintiff who had been serving in Madhya Pradesh came to know of the sale-deeds in the year 1979 and thereafter filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the entire land measuring 112 kanals 9 marlas and that he had never gifted one share of this land to Harnam Kaur and the mutation in her favour on the basis of oral gift is illegal and void and not binding upon him. He also sought a permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.

4. Harnam Kaur contested the suit taking a preliminary objection to the effect that the same was not within limitation; that the plaintiff was estopped by his acts and conduct from filing the present suit; that a suit for declaration simpliciter was not maintainable; that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction; that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and as such he was not entitled to the permanent injunction and that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1966.

5. On merits it was admitted that in the revenue record the plaintiff had been recorded as the owner of the suit land but it was asserted that the real facts were that Hazura Singh, her husband, had another wife namely Basso and the said Basso had been given 4 Killas of land for her maintenance after the death of Hazura Singh and in view of that she became the owner in view of the Hindu Succession Act. It was further stated that Harnam Kaur was given the suit land and the mutation was rightly sanctioned in her favour and the possession was delivered to her and since then she has been in possession of the land as an absolute owner. It was further asserted that the plaintiff had himself appeared at the time of the mutation and got the same sanctioned in the name of Harnam Kaur on his own accord and therefore now he is estopped from challenging the title of Harnam Kaur. It was reiterated that she had become the full owner of the property under a gift which was acted upon as the possession was transferred to her and the oral gift was valid in law.

6. Pritam Kaur also contested the suit on the same grounds and she also pleaded that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice regarding the alleged title or interest of the plaintiff. While filing a written statement to the amended plaint, the heirs of Harnam Kaur having been added as defendants No. 1 and 2, Pritam Kaur asserted that Harnam Kaur had become owner by adverse possession. No separate written statement filed by the other legal representatives of Harnam Kaur who were brought on the record.

7. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of th