JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

The legal representatives of the plaintiff-Ram Murti are in Regular Second Appeal.

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1988 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.1988 passed by the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Rajpura (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial Court'), decreeing the suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction, filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff, was allowed, resultantly dismissing the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff.

3. Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff/Ram Murti (since deceased), who happened to be the nephew of respondent-defendant, filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of 1/3rd share of 06 biswas of land falling in Khewat Khatoni No. 37/142 Khasra No. 1166 / 1040 / 285 (2-17), situated in the revenue limits of Village Barahman Majra, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib (now district). It was pleaded that the above mentioned 06 biswas land was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 16.03.1959 from Amir Chand against sale consideration of Rs. 1000/- with 2/3rd share recorded in the name of the father of appellant, whereas 1/3rd share was registered in the name of respondent-defendant, though the entre sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff from his own pocket. It was further pleaded that the father of appellant-plaintiff raised construction of residential house over the property in question about 24-25 years back and the respondent-defendant despite been aware of the same never raised any objection being fully conversant with the fact that he was only a Benamindar and in fact, the appellant-plaintiff was the real owner. In the alternate, it was further pleaded that the father of appellant had raised residential house 24-25 years back; with complete knowledge and notice of this fact to the respondent-defendant, the appellant-plaintiff even acquired ownership by way of adverse possession. Finally, it was pleaded that the respondent-defendant been intending to dispossess the appellant-plaintiff from the suit property in question, the suit was filed.

4. Upon notice, the respondent-defendant appeared and filed written statement having admitted the relationship between the parties. Further, it was admitted that the land was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 16.03.1969 against sale consideration of Rs. 1000/- in the name of respondent-defendant as well his brother, namely, Jai Ram Dass, who happened to the father of appellant-plaintiff; in the ratio of 1/3rd and 2/3rd share respectively. It was further pleaded that the respondent-defendant was in possession of his 1/3rd share measuring 2 biswas and the remaining 4 biswas remained in possession of his brother Jai Ram Dass. The factum of sale deed dated 16.03.1969 being a benami transaction was specifically denied. Further, it was also pleaded that the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff was not maintainable as an earlier suit filed at his instance was withdrawn and thus, he was estopped and barred by his own act and conduct from filing this suit.

5. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be stayed u/s 10 C.P.C.? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff is barred to file the present suit by principle of estoppel? OPD

9. Relief. '

6. Learned trial Court, vide