JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.06.1993 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1996 passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-Ajmer Singh had filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction averring therein that he and defendants No.5 and 6 i.e. Bachan Singh and Ujjagar Singh were brothers and defendants No.2 to 4 i.e. Bhan Kaur, Surjit Kaur and Nand Kaur, respectively were their sisters and defendant No.1 i.e. the appellant herein is the son of defendant No.5. It was the case set up that the land in dispute was owned by Bholu who had three daughters and three sons. On the death of Bholu, land measuring 90 Kanals and 7 Marlas was inherited by his children. Sometime before the filing of the suit, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants qua the Khewat. The dispute was settled with the intervention of the villagers and it was resolved that defendants No.2 to 4 i.e. respondents No.6, 7 and 8 respectively herein shall surrender their shares in the suit land in favour of each of their brothers, namely, the plaintiff-Ajmer Singh and defendant-respondent Nos.9 and 10 in the present appeal or their sons as may be opted by them. Defendant No.2 i.e. Bhan Kaur (respondent No.6 herein) suffered a decree qua her 9/88th share in the total Khewat in favour of defendant-respondent No.10 herein and mutation was also sanctioned on the basis of the decree. Defendant No.1-appellant filed a Civil Suit being CS-844 of 26.11.1990 against his Aunt defendant-respondent No.8 herein for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession 1/2 share of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.22//17 (8-0), 18 (8-0) bearing Khewat No.308 and Khatauni No.581 and Khasra No.22/23/1 min (1-5) and 24/1 min (1-4) bearing Khatauni No 582. He also filed another suit being CS-729 of 06.12.1990 against his other Aunt defendant-respondent No.7 herein regarding the remaining 1/2 share in these Khasra numbers. In both the said suits, defendant-respondents No.7 and 8 were made to believe that they were surrendering 29/88th share each in the land in dispute by means of the Civil Court decree though that was not true. They were brought to the Court on different dates but were not allowed to meet each other. Both the suits were decreed vide judgements and decrees dated 14.01.1991 and 04.03.1991. Sometime prior to the filing of the present suit the plaintiff-Ajmer Singh is alleged to have approached his sister defendant-respondent No.7 i.e. Surjit Kaur to surrender her share in the suit land in his favour in accordance with the family settlement. She stated that she had already suffered a civil court decree dated 14.01.1991 in favour of defendant No.1-appellant herein at the asking of the other brother defendant-respondent No.9. On this the plaintiff-Ajmer Singh approached his other sister defendant-respondent No.8 i.e. Nand Kaur to get her share transferred in his favour but to his utter surprise he was told that she had also already suffered a civil court decree dated 04.03.1991 in favour of defendant No.1-appellant. Thereafter, he informed his sisters Surjit Kaur and Nand Kaur that the decrees suffered by them were not in accordance with the family settlement as one of them was to surrender her share in his favour and the other in favour of Bachan Singh (defendant-respondent No.9 i.e. father of the defendant No.1-appellant). It was only thereafter that the two sisters -Surjit Kaur and Nand Kaur - came to know of the fraud played upon them. The said decrees dated 14.01.1991 and 04.03.1991 were challenged on various grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a declaration qua ownership of the plaintiff-Ajmer Singh was sought and relief of permanent injunction was prayed for.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No.1-appellant herein whereas