JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. This consolidated judgment governs the adjudication of the above-captioned Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) and the connected Contempt of Courts proceedings (hereinafter referred to as “COCP”), both of which emanate from an identical factual substratum and raise overlapping questions of law. Having regard to the identity of parties, the interlinked nature of the impugned decrees and proceedings, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, both matters are being taken up and disposed of together in the interest of judicial economy, consistency of legal reasoning, and procedural efficiency.

1.1. At the instance of learned counsel appearing in the RSA as well as the COCP, the factual matrix relevant for the purposes of the present consolidated adjudication has been carefully culled out from the records of both proceedings, as the same provides the most complete, coherent, and accurate narration of the material facts necessary for effective determination. It is apposite to note that vide order dated 18.02.2003, the aforesaid COCP was directed to be heard and decided conjointly with RSA-2654-2001

2. This judgment, in particular, addresses the RSA filed by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Narnaul, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court were affirmed. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.1992, had dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant–plaintiff seeking a declaratory decree.

3. The core facts of the case, relevant for adjudication, are as follows:-

“The case set up by the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, in brief, is that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration asserting that the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 758, titled Hoshiar Singh etc. v. Smt. Surji, are erroneous, illegal, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. Reference was made to the pedigree table incorporated in paragraph No. 2 of the impugned judgment, depicting the relationship of the plaintiff with the parties. It was pleaded that the disputed land, comprised in Khewat No. 60, Khatoni No. 75, measuring 21 kanals 7 marlas, is ancestral qua the plaintiff, late Smt. Chawali (mother of defendants Nos. 1 to 3), and Smt. Surji. The plaintiff averred that the said property was illegally and wrongfully obtained by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from Smt. Surji by virtue of the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.1987, which was allegedly procured by fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of material facts. It was specifically pleaded that no family settlement had ever taken place between the parties. It was further asserted that Smt. Surji had earlier executed a registered Will dated 19.10.1976 bearing No. 32 in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, wherein it was expressly mentioned that the disputed house had been constructed by the plaintiff. On this basis, the plaintiff claimed entitlement to a 1/6th share in the disputed property. Despite repeated requests, the defendants failed to admit the claim of the plaintiff, which constrained him to institute the present suit.”

4. Upon entering appearance, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, the substance of which is set out hereunder:-

“By way of preliminary objections, they raised issues regarding the locus standi of the plaintiff and the maintainability of the suit, asserted that defendant No. 4 was the exclusive owner of the disputed property, pleaded estoppel, limitation, and sought the imposition of special costs.

On merits, it was contended that the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 758, titled Hoshiar Singh etc. v. Smt. Surji, had been lawfully and validly rendered in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. All other averments and allegations made in the plaint were categorica