JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is joint owner in joint possession of suit land measuring 7 kanal 10 marla 7 sarsahi as described in the plaint; and consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. appellant as 'plaintiff' and respondent as 'defendant'.

3. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that on 18.08.2006, the plaintiff had borrowed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-in cash from the defendant in the presence of Paramjit Singh Namberdar and Lakhwinder Singh. The plaintiff had promised to return the same to the defendant along with monthly interest of 1%. However, the defendant exercised misrepresentation and coercion on the plaintiff and compelled him to execute a Sale Deed in respect of the land of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as a security of loan amount. On the same day, a written agreement was also executed between the parties wherein the terms and conditions of loan amount received by the plaintiff from the defendant were incorporated. In the first week of August 2011, the plaintiff arranged money for repayment, but the defendant kept putting off the matter on some pretext or the other. In July 2012, the plaintiff again approached the defendant however, he refused to accept the loan amount back along with interest. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 28.07.2012.

4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who appeared through counsel and resisted the suit by filing written statement. Besides formal objections, it was pleaded in the written statement that the alleged Agreement dated 18.08.2006 is a false, forged, fictitious and fabricated document and the defendant did not sign the purported agreement. It was further stated that if the signatures of the defendant on the alleged agreement dated 18.08.2006 were proved to be genuine, then the same had been fraudulently procured by the plaintiff from the defendant in connivance with the scribe and marginal witnesses by misrepresenting the defendant. It was stated that the scribe of the sale deed dated 18.08.2006 had obtained the signatures of defendant on several documents and the defendant had appended his signatures on all the documents in good faith believing the same to be the part of documents of sale deed dated 18.08.2006. Remaining averments were denied, and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. Replication controverting the contents of written statement was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the averments of the plaint.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.04.2013:-

'1 . Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and joint possession in the property in dispute as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

8. Whether the alleged agreement dated 18.08.2006 is false, forged and fictitious document? OPD

9. Relief.'

7. On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court decided issues No.1 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff; issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant was restrained from alienating the suit land in any manner or from dispossessing the