JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellants/defendants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 16.04.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 22.02.1989/07.01.1991, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 19.01.1989 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Fazilka, in Case No. 172-1 of 02.08.1984, were erroneously set aside, respectfully invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, by way of the present Regular Second Appeal (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 is vitiated by patent illegality, perversity, and grave errors of law, compounded by a mis-appreciation of evidence on record, resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the appellants pray that this Court be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the lawful and well-reasoned decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

2. For clarity and ease of reference, the parties shall hereinafter be designated as the plaintiff and the defendants, consistent with their respective roles before the learned Trial Court. The material facts giving rise to the present proceedings are summarized as follows:-

"The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he is the absolute owner of the property in dispute, whereas the defendants have no legal right, title, or interest therein. Being aged and infirm, he resides with his daughter at Fazilka and oversees the cultivation of the land through his tenants. The defendants are now threatening to unlawfully interfere with his peaceful possession and dispossess him, thereby necessitating the institution of the present suit."

3. Upon service of notice, the defendants have contested the suit and, by filing their written statement, have asserted that Devi Dass had three sons, Devi Dyal, Jugal Kishore, and Jai Gopal and that upon Devi Dyal's death, his heirs including Smt. Radha Rani, Jai Gopal, Jugal Kishore, and Om Parkash acquired his one-third share and are in lawful possession of the disputed property as co-sharers. The plaintiff has admitted their ownership and possession pursuant to the agreement dated 29.10.1983 for appointing arbitrators, as reflected in his affidavit. It is contended that the defendants had filed a suit for declaration with consequential injunction restraining the plaintiff from alienating the property. The plaintiff's prior suit for declaration and injunction, including an application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, Defendants No. 2 and 3 obtained an injunction in their declaration suit. The present suit is alleged to have been filed by the plaintiff as a counter-blast with mala fide intent.

4. The plaintiff filed a replication, reiterating and reaffirming all material averments in the plaint while specifically traversing and refuting the defenses raised by the respondents. Upon careful examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for determination to facilitate a clear adjudication of the rival claims and defenses:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his on act and conduct? OPD.

2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property in suit? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

4. Relief.

5. Both parties were provided ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon the conclusion of the trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned SubJudge 1st Class, Fazilka, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, which was al