JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellants/defendants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, in Civil Appeal No. 195 of 24.10.1996, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 03.09.1996 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Civil Suit No. 13 dated 04.01.1994 were erroneously reversed, most respectfully invoke the appellate and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, by way of the present Regular Second Appeal ('RSA'). The appellants humbly seek restoration of the lawful decree passed by the learned Trial Court and appropriate relief for the substantial injustice occasioned to them by the impugned judgment.

1.1 It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree suffer from patent illegality, perversity, and misdirection in law, being founded upon a fundamentally erroneous appreciation of evidence and misapplication of settled legal principles, thereby resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the appellants earnestly pray that this Court be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and to reinstate the well-reasoned and legally sustainable judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court in the interest of justice and equity.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants, corresponding to their respective positions before the learned Trial Court. The material facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly delineated as under:-

'The plaintiff contends that the land measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas, comprised in Killa Nos. 409 (0-12), 193 (0-16), and 349 (0-4), situated in Village Ullak, is held jointly by the parties along with other co-sharers, and remains in their joint possession. The land has not yet been partitioned. It is alleged that the defendants, with the intention of prejudicing the plaintiff's interests, sought to alienate certain Khasra numbers beyond their lawful shares and to erect unauthorized constructions thereon. In view of the defendants' refusal to acknowledge the plaintiff's claim, the present suit has been instituted seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the specified Khasra numbers in excess of their shares or from undertaking any construction thereon.

3. Upon receipt of notice, the defendants entered appearance through counsel and filed their written statement, wherein they categorically contested the suit and asserted that the land in dispute was originally jointly owned by the plaintiff and his brother, Jarnail Singh. On 11.06.1973, the land was partitioned, with the disputed portion falling to Jarnail Singh's share. Pursuant to the partition, Jarnail Singh sold 1 Kanal 11 Marlas in favour of Bhajan Singh, Defendant No. 2, by Sale Deed No. 2197 dated 15.06.1974, delivering possession to him, and Bhajan Singh has since been in lawful possession as owner. Thereafter, Bhajan Singh sold 1 Kanal, comprising Khasra Nos. 193 (0-16) and 349 (0-4), to Gurcharan Singh, Defendant No. 1, by Sale Deed No. 1153 dated 27.05.1987, who has been in lawful possession of the property thereafter. The defendants further asserted that the plaintiff instituted the present suit solely to harass them, having no right, title, or interest in the suit property, and accordingly prayed for its dismissal.

4. The plaintiff has filed a replication, in which he reiterates and expressly affirms all the material allegations contained in the plaint, while specifically denying and refuting the defenses and contentions raised by the respondents. Upon a careful examination of the pleadings, documents, and oral submissions, this Court has accordingly framed the following issues for determination, to enable adjudication of the competing claims and defenses, as detailed below:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitle