DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Defendants are in this second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. In order to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. Plaintiffs – Harbans Kaur & Simarjit Kaur @ Harsimber Jit Kaur (now respondents) filed the suit bearing registration No.CS/ 080/2009 titled 'Harbans Kaur & another Vs. Ajaib Singh & Others' seeking decree for declaration, possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants Ajaib Singh & Others (now appellants), with regard to suit property, before Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Baba Bakala Sahib, Amritsar.

3. Some admitted facts may be noticed. Charan Singh son of Ujagar Singh, native of Village Bhoe, Tehsil Baba Bakala, Amritsar was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 kanals. He shifted to Indonesia long back and died there on 09.11.1980 as per death certificate Ex.P7. He had appointed his mother Smt. Tej Kaur as his General Attorney by executing Power of Attorney dated 10.10.1975 (Ex.D1). On the strength of this Power of Attorney, Smt. Tej Kaur acting as General Power of Attorney Holder of Charan Singh executed three sale deeds dated 12.06.1981 (Ex.D3, Ex.D5 and Ex.D11) in respect of 5 kanal each i.e. total 15 kanals of the suit land in favour of three brothers, i.e. defendants No.1, 2 and 3. Prior thereto, Charan Singh had mortgaged the suit land in favour of defendant No.3 vide the mortgage deed dated 05.08.1975 (Ex.D2) and ever since the date of mortgage, defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit land.

4. Plaintiffs are the widow and daughter i.e. natural legal heirs of deceased Charan Singh son of Ujagar Singh. They visited India in 2008 and came to know about the sale deeds in favour of the defendants. These three sale deeds have been challenged by the plaintiffs to be null, illegal and void being result of fraud and also beyond the competency of power of attorney holder and, so, liable to be set aside, as Charan Singh had already expired on 09.11.1980. They sought decree for declaration to this effect and also prayed for declaration that they are owners of the suit land. Plaintiffs further prayed for possession of the suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating any portion of the land.

5. The stand of the defendants is that sale deeds executed on 12.06.l981 have been challenged in the year 2009 i.e. after 28 years and, so, the suit is hopelessly time barred. They denied that the plaintiffs gained knowledge regarding the impugned sale deed in 2008 on their visit to India. They also raised objection of non-joinder of the necessary parties, inasmuch Smt. Tej Kaur was not impleaded as a party to the suit. They further pleaded that they are bonafide purchasers of the suit land for consideration without notice, as sale deeds in question were executed through General Power of Attorney of Charan Singh. In the alternative, the possession of the defendants on the suit land is stated to be open, hostile, uninterrupted and continuous for the last more than 28 years and so adverse possession has already matured into ownership. They also pleaded about the prior mortgage deed dated 05.08.1975.

With this stand and controverting other submissions of the plaint, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. In rejoinder, plaintiffs reiterated their case.

7. The following issues were framed for adjudication by learned trial Court.

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for?OPP

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

3) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable?OPP

4) Whether the suit is within limitation?OPP

5) Whether the defendants are bonafide purchasers for consideration, without notice?OPD

6) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

7) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by