JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction regarding property in dispute filed by plaintiff-Trust (appellant herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.03.2015; and said judgment has been upheld by the First Appellate Court on 29.02.2020, in the appeal field by the plaintiff-appellant. Against these concurrent findings, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal.

2. The dispute pertains to land measuring 06 kanals, 10 marlas, situated within the municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Farrukh Nagar, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurgaon as detailed in the plaint. It was claimed by the plaintiff that earlier it was an unregistered trust. Later on, it got registered with the Registrar of Societies, Gurgaon. The suit property consists of Dharmshala, Mandir, Marriage Pandal, Piao etc. Initially, the suit property was owned by Seth Nainsukh Dass Sukh Ram Dass. Their descendants decided to constitute a trust to utilize the suit property for the welfare of the public at large. The trust was managing and controlling the disputed property through a Managing Committee. The meetings of the Managing Committee were being attended even by defendant No.2 and his father Udai Chand. It is alleged that defendants (respondents herein) along with their associates tried to encroach upon the suit property on 09.08.2008, but were thwarted in their attempts due to timely intervention of the police and respectables. It is further alleged that defendant No.2 has illegally sold a portion of the suit property to defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 15.07.2008 without having any right to alienate the same and now defendant No.1 is threatening to further alienate the said portion. Defendants are also threatening to encroach upon portion ABCD' of the suit property without having any right. With these allegations, plaintiff prayed for declaration that impugned sale deed bearing Vasika No.1178 dated 15.07.2008 is null, illegal and void and not binding on it. As a consequential relief, plaintiff prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from encroaching upon the suit property by way of demolishing its boundary wall or alienating it in any manner.

3. Defendants opposed the claim. They denied the plaintiff to have any concern with the suit property. According to them, there are numerous co-sharers of the suit property. Udai Chand was one of the co-sharers and upon his demise, defendant No.2 along with his brothers succeeded the share of Udai Chand vide mutation No.7235 sanctioned on 04.06.2006. Defendant No.2 asserted that being in possession of his share in the suit property, he validly sold the said share for valuable consideration by way of registered sale deed dated 15.07.2008 in favour of defendant No.1 and now defendant No.1 along with his brother-in-law has raised construction thereon. Defendants further stated that plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit till the suit property is partitioned by metes and bounds. Prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

4. After framing necessary issues and taking evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.03.2015. As noticed earlier, appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the findings of the trial Court were upheld by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.02.2020.

5. Assailing the aforesaid findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and that even the document Ex.PX was not taken into consideration.

6. Before considering the contention, it will be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the observations made by the First Appellate Court based upon evidence produced during trial. These read as under:-

"8. In the present case, the only moot question which requires determination is that as to whether the disputed property was ever donated by its