JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

The defendants No. 1 and 3 are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. At the very outset, it is pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2019. However, notice has not yet been issued in the same, as the matter has been adjourned since 2020 either at the repeated requests, or due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The brief facts are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration that the sale deed no.6504 dated 27.8.2008 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 registered in office of the sub registrar Ballabgarh, null and void and further declare all the entries in the revenue record on the basis of said deed including mutation no.12872 dated 25.3.2010 null and void. Further to declare the sale deed no.5922 dated 13.8.2008 registered in the office of Sub Registrar Ballabgarh null and void and declare all the entries in the revenue record on the basis of said deed including mutation no.11539 dated 26.8.2003 null and void. Furthermore, restrain the defendants from selling the plots in dispute or creating, transferring any right title or interest in favour of any person/third party and restrain the defendants from taking any forcible possession of the plots in dispute by adopting illegal means.

4. The case put forth in the plaint was that the plaintiffs are husband and wife. Defendant No.1 is the real brother of plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.2 is the daughter in law of defendant No.1; and defendant No.3 is the wife of defendant No.1. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners in equal share of 2 plots measuring 450 Sq. Yds. and 272 Sq.Yds, and they are in physical possession of the said plots. On the plot measuring 450 Sq.Yds, the plaintiffs were running Deep Dharam Kanta and the School; and on the plot of 272 Sq.Yds, plaintiffs were co-owners in equal shares. It was alleged that the defendants in connivance with each other, were playing fraud upon the plaintiffs and were trying to grab the suit properties. It was pleaded that the defendant No.1 had executed a Sale Deed No. 6504 dated 27.08.2008 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of a fraudulent Power of Attorney of plaintiff No.1.

5. It was further alleged that defendant No.1 had executed another Sale Deed No. 5922 dated 13.08.2008 with regard to the suit property measuring 272 Sq.Yds. in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of a fraudulent GPA of plaintiff No.1. The said Power of Attorney was stated to have been executed by plaintiff No.1 alongwith his two brothers and one sister in favour of defendant No.1 when the land was in joint possession. Defendant No.1 was their eldest brother. However, the said Power of Attorney was cancelled by plaintiff No.1 on 23.06.1986 vide Cancellation Deed No. 4/90 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Ballabgarh. Plaintiff had also informed defendant No.1 about the said cancellation. It was further pleaded that a Family Partition had taken place vide Agreement dated 08.12.1992 upon which all brothers had affixed their signatures and thumb impressions. All the brothers mutually agreed that they will not interfere in each other's property, and they all were entitled to sell their property to anyone. Despite that defendant No.1 had fraudulently and illegally executed the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 27.08.2008 in favour of defendant No.2 pertaining to plot measuring 450 Sq. Yds. for a sale consideration of Rs.9 lacs. Even a mutation No. 11539 was recorded in favour of the defendants. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that no consideration was given to the plaintiffs or to defendant No. 1 by defendants No.2 and 3; that plaintiffs had been cheated and fraud had been played upon them. W