JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1999 passed by the District Judge, Sonepat whereby judgment and decree dated 21.12.1998 passed by the Trial Court was reversed and the suit for possession was dismissed. The appellants are the successors-in-interest of Jot Ram (plaintiff) while the respondents are the successors-in-interest of Baljit Singh (defendant). Both Jot Ram (plaintiff) and Baljit Singh (defendant) have died during the pendency of the litigation.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Jot Ram was owner of agricultural land as detailed in the plaint. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff - Jot Ram (since deceased) for possession against defendant - Baljit Singh (since deceased) - averring therein that the plaintiff, Jot Ram, and the defendant, Baljit Singh, did not form a joint Hindu family nor the defendant, Baljit Singh, was a member of the family of the plaintiff, Jot Ram. It was further averred that by practicing fraud on the plaintiff, Jot Ram, and pretending that a Will had to be executed in favour of the daughter of the plaintiff, Jot Ram, he was brought to the Court and a collusive and fictitious decree was got passed on 30.05.1986. It was further averred that the plaintiff, Jot Ram, never adopted the defendant, Baljit Singh, nor the said defendant rendered any services to the plaintiff, Jot Ram, nor any adoption deed was ever written with any condition. The plaintiff, Jot Ram, in the present suit challenged the validity of judgment and decree dated 30.05.1986 and averred that the defendant, Baljit Singh, had forcibly taken possession of the land from the plaintiff, Jot Ram. The defendant, Baljit Singh, filed a written statement and raised a preliminary objection of maintainability as well as estoppel and that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. On merits it was contended that the defendant, Baljit Singh, was owner in possession of the entire suit land and that he was the adopted son of the plaintiff, Jot Ram. It was further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff, Jot Ram, had admitted the factum of adoption while making a statement before the Civil Court in the previous suit. It was further the stand taken that the plaintiff, Jot Ram, had suffered a decree in favour of the defendant, Baljit Singh, out of his free will and no fraud or misrepresentation was practiced upon him. Replication was filed reiterating the contents of the plaint.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 04.09.1987 :

1. Whether the decree dated 30.05.1986 is illegal and void, as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit ? OPD

3. Whether the suit for declaration alone is not maintainable ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

5. Relief.

4. Subsequently, the following issue was framed on 11.09.1995 :

1-A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of suit land from defendant, as alleged ? OPP

5. Thereafter, the following issue was framed on 12.03.1998 :

1-B. Whether the defendant is adopted son of the plaintiff Jot Ram ? OPD

6. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1998 decreed the suit holding that the defendant, Baljit Singh, was never adopted by the plaintiff, Jot Ram, and the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1986 passed in the civil suit titled ' Baljit Singh v. Jot Ram ' was illegal, null and void and was hence accordingly set aside and further that the plaintiff-appellants herein, who are the legal representatives of Jot Ram on the basis of Will dated 11.11.1987, were entitled to get their names incorporated i