JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellants/plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.04.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in Civil Appeal No. RBT-191-1989, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 19.01.1989 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Fazilka, in Case No. 128 of 14.07.1984, was erroneously reversed, most respectfully invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, by way of the present Regular Second Appeal (to be referred as "RSA"). The appellants seek restoration of the decree rightly passed by the learned Trial Court and appropriate redress for the substantial injustice suffered.

1.1. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are manifestly perverse, being founded upon fundamental errors of law and a grossly flawed appreciation of evidence, resulting in a palpable miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the appellants humbly pray for the intervention of this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to restore the lawful and well-reasoned decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. To ensure clarity and convenience in the course of this discussion, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants, consistent with their status before the learned Trial Court. The essential facts leading to the institution of the present proceedings are set out below:-

"The plaintiffs aver that Devi Dass, father of plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant, had three sons, including Devi Dial (since deceased). Upon his demise, Devi Dial was survived by his widow Smt. Radha Piari and sons Jai Gopal, Jugal Kishore, and Om Parkash. It is stated that all three sons of Devi Dass migrated from Pakistan to India and were allotted land in lieu of their ancestral shares by the Rehabilitation Department.

The disputed property is alleged to be joint, with plaintiff No.2, the defendant, and the heirs of late Devi Dial each holding a one-third share. The defendant, by an arbitration agreement dated 29.10.1983 and an affidavit of the same date, acknowledged his one-third interest. The Arbitrator subsequently awarded the disputed property exclusively to plaintiff no. 2; however, as the award was not made a rule of the court, the defendant legally retains his one-third share. It is further alleged that the defendant has now threatened to alienate the said property by relying upon revenue record entries, necessitating the institution of the present suit."

3. Upon notice, the defendant contested the suit, asserting that the disputed land was initially leased to him by the Government in 1951 and subsequently purchased in 1961, thereby conferring exclusive ownership upon him. He denied the plaintiffs' claim of any right, title, or interest in the property. The alleged arbitration agreement and affidavit dated 29.10.1983 were described as forged and fabricated. The defendant further averred that, being aged and physically infirm, he was subjected to undue influence and coercion by the plaintiffs and their associates, who allegedly confined and intimidated him into signing certain English documents and blank papers relating to House No. 1/274, near Arya Samaj, Fazilka. He maintains that any signatures obtained were without his knowledge, consent, or comprehension of their contents, and as such, the documents are invalid and non-binding. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiffs filed a replication, reiterating and expressly reaffirming all material allegations contained in the plaint, while specifically traversing and refuting the defense and contentions advanced by the respondents. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents, and oral submissions, Court has framed the following issues for determination in order to adjudicate the competing claims and defenses, which are detailed below:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act and