JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14th February 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2nd March 1993, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 30th January 1993 of the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Charkhi Dadri, in Civil Suit No. 1047 of 31st October 1985, was erroneously set aside, invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, by way of the present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after to be referred as 'RSA'). The appellants seek restoration of the decree passed by the learned Trial Court and appropriate relief for the substantial injustice suffered.

1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are manifestly perverse, founded on fundamental errors of law and a grossly flawed appreciation of evidence, resulting in a palpable miscarriage of justice. In view of these circumstances, this Court's intervention is warranted to set aside the erroneous judgment and reinstate the lawful and well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. For the sake of clarity and to facilitate an orderly exposition, the parties in the present proceedings shall hereinafter be designated as the plaintiffs and the defendants, in accordance with their respective positions before the learned Trial Court. The salient facts and the essential factual matrix giving rise to the institution of the present proceedings may be briefly narrated as follows, so as to provide a coherent framework for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties:-

"The plaintiffs contend that they are the lawful owners in possession of the suit land. The decree dated 31.01.1983 in Civil Suit No. 38 of 1983 is alleged to be collusive and fraudulent, and the mutation based thereon is likewise liable to be set aside, as it cannot affect the plaintiffs' rights. The defendants allegedly misrepresented themselves as heirs of Hira Lal, who had no surviving son, to wrongfully claim the property. No family settlement existed, nor was there any necessity for transfer. Additionally, a subsequent transfer by the defendant in favor of Smt. Bhateri, based on a decree dated 25.01.1986, is also contended to be void and liable to annulment. Consequently, the plaintiffs were constrained to initiate the present suit. "

3. The suit was contested by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on the ground that Defendant No. 1 has been the lawful owner and in possession of the suit property since Samvat 2027, pursuant to a valid adoption and family settlement, with the adoption deed executed on 17.12.1982 and the subsequent decree dated 25.01.1986 lawfully passed in his favour. The defendants categorically deny any fraud upon Hira Lal and submit that the adoption deed is binding on all concerned parties, thereby rendering the plaintiffs' suit untenable and liable to be dismissed.

4. The plaintiffs filed a replication, reiterating all material allegations in the plaint and specifically traversing the defense raised by the respondents. Upon examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions, Court framed the following issues for determination to adjudicate the rival claims and defenses:-

1. Whether the judgement and decree, suit No.38 dated 31.1.83 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and the same is liable to be set aside in view the grounds mentioned in para No.4? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, then whether the mutation No.469 of 7.7.85 is also liable to be set aside? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD.

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

5. Whether the suit is estopped by filing the present suit by his act and conduct ? OPD.

6. Whether the suit land is ancestral between the parties, if so to what effect? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP.

8. Relief.

5. Both parties were afforded ade