JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J. 

The appellants have instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as "RSA") under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, assailing the judgments and decrees rendered by the courts below. The appeal is primarily founded on the contention that the findings recorded by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Fatehabad, and the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, are contrary to law, founded upon a manifest mis-appreciation of evidence, and have occasioned substantial prejudice to the appellants, thereby warranting the intervention of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the said provision.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience in the discussion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant, corresponding to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. The salient and material facts forming the foundation of the present proceedings, which are essential for an informed adjudication of the issues, are briefly narrated as follows:-

"This is a suit seeking a declaratory decree affirming that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of 9 Kanals 15 Marlas of land, comprised in Killa Nos. 4//10/2 and 11/1, village Majra, Tehsil Fatehabad. The plaintiff challenges the decree dated 12.02.1990 in Civil Suit No. 648 of 1989 (Fauja Singh vs. Phuman Singh) by Sh. Kuldip Jain, then Sub Judge 1st Class, Fatehabad, as illegal, null, and void, having been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. The plaintiff owns and possesses the land and a Katcha house within Lal Lakir, consisting of ten rooms, a kitchen, and boundary walls, where he and his family have resided for over 40 years. He has no other agricultural land and depends solely on the income from this property.

It is alleged that the defendant, acting fraudulently, obtained the plaintiff's signatures on blank papers under the pretext of repaying a bank loan and misused them in Civil Suit No. 648 of 1989. The alleged oral exchange of the land never occurred, and the plaintiff neither appeared nor engaged counsel in that suit. Consequently, the decree is fraudulent, legally void, and non-binding. The defendant is now threatening the plaintiff's possession, prompting the present suit for a declaration of ownership and possession.

3. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement, in which he resisted the plaintiff's claims, categorically denying all allegations in the plaint. The defendant also raised several preliminary objections, challenging the plaintiff's locus-standi, the sufficiency of the Court fee, and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and maintain the suit, further contending that the suit is vexatious, false, and devoid of merit.

3.1. On the merits, the defendant categorically denied the claims of the plaintiff. While it was acknowledged that the plaintiff had previously been in possession of the disputed land, the defendant contended that, pursuant to the decree dated 12.02.1990, the plaintiff is now the lawful owner in possession. The defendant further denied that the plaintiff ever held ownership of the house situated within Lal Lakir, village Majra, as alleged in Paragraph 1 of the plaint, asserting that the house has always belonged to the defendant and that the plaintiff's possession arises solely from the decree of exchange dated 12.02.1990.

3.2. The defendant categorically denied that he obtained the plaintiff's signatures on blank papers or engaged in any fraudulent conduct to procure the impugned decree concerning the disputed land. On the contrary, it was asserted that the plaintiff personally appeared before the Court, engaged legal counsel, filed a written statement, and admitted the defendant's claim regarding the land. Accordingly, the impugned decree was rendered with the consent of both parties, and is therefore legal, valid, and binding upon the plaintiff.

3.3. All other allegations advanced by t