JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction, has been decreed in part by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a Civil Suit seeking declaration and annulment of Sale Deed No. 66 dated 13.04.2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and further seeking injunction restraining defendant No.2 from making any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land which was in the possession of the plaintiffs; and further for restraining defendant No.2 from getting the mutation sanctioned on the basis of illegal Sale Deed No. 66 dated 13.04.2011.

3. It was the pleaded case of the appellants in the plaint that defendant No.1 was owner in possession to the extent of 541/10365 share in total land measuring 69K 2M i.e. total land measuring 3K 12M. Defendant No.1 had sold land measuring 1K 10M to plaintiff No.1 by virtue of Sale Deed No. 115 dated 22.04.2010; and remaining land measuring 2K 5M was sold by defendant No.1 to plaintiff No.2 vide Agreement to Sell dated 04.08.2010. It was further averred that in pursuance to the Agreement to Sell dated 04.08.2010, defendant No.1 had executed Sale Deed No. 197 dated 26.04.2011 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and himself handed over physical possession of suit land with khasra No. 26//4/1 min (2-0). However, upon receipt of summons in suit titled as Bhim Singh vs. Maha Singh, plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.1 had executed the impugned Sale Deed No. 66 dated 13.04.2011 in favour of defendant No.2. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 04.06.2011 seeking declaration that impugned Sale Deed No. 66 dated 13.04.2011 was null and void being result of fraud and misrepresentation and without transfer of possession to defendant No. 2 and executed only to defeat the right of the plaintiffs.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2014, in the following terms:-

“16. As a sequel to my findings under the aforesaid issues, the suit of plaintiffs is decreed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. The relief qua declaration seeking annulment of sale deed no.66 dated 13.4.2011 is declined. However, defendant no.1 is directed to return the sale consideration qua 18 marlas of land on the basis of value of the property mentioned in the sale deed no.197 dated 26.4.2011 at a rate of interest 9% per annum from the date of sale deed no.197 dated 26.4.2011 till its realization.……”

5. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2019. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that the impugned sale deed of the suit land is without possession; and same is not binding on rights of the appellants because the respondent No.1 along with his son Naresh had delivered the possession of the suit land to the appellants on 26.04.2011. It is submitted that the impugned sale deed is without any consideration also and it might have been got by respondent No.1 by playing fraud upon appellant no.1 because appellant No.1 is illiterate lady. But the Ld. Courts below has brushed aside the above argument of the appellants without any reasoning.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellant No.1 is owner in possession of the suit land and respondents have no right, title and interest over any part of the suit land. The appellants have already raised constructions, carved out foundations etc. and also fenced barbed wire over the suit land comprised in Khasra No.26//4/1 Min. North. B