JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J .

1. The appellants–defendants, profoundly aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1993 of the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, which overturned the considered and meticulously reasoned judgment and decree dated 05.11.1990 of the learned Sub-Judge I^st Class, Mahendergarh, invoke the extraordinary appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”) for the restoration of the lawful and unimpeachable decree of the learned Trial Court and for redress against the manifest miscarriage of justice occasioned by the impugned decision; it is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are palpably perverse, vitiated by substantial errors of law, and founded upon a fundamentally flawed and incomplete appreciation of the evidentiary record, resulting in grave injustice to the appellants, who accordingly pray that this Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and reinstate the well-reasoned, just, and unassailable decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. The brief factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal may be succinctly recapitulated as follows:-

“The plaintiffs instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, asserting that they are joint owners and in lawful possession of the suit land. It was specifically averred that plaintiffs 1, 3, 5, and 7 had also purchased the respective shares of Karan Singh and Ravinder by virtue of sale deeds dated 08.06.1985 and 06.11.1985. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants, without any right, title, or interest, caused their names to be incorporated in the revenue record in respect of the kharif crop of 1985. Such entries, it was pleaded, are not binding upon the plaintiffs, and the defendants have further threatened to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs without lawful authority. It is upon these contentions that the plaintiffs instituted the present suit. ”

3. The defendants, having been duly served, appeared and submitted written statement, opposing the suit in its entirety and denying all material allegations raised by the plaintiffs:-

“It was contended that the plaintiffs lack locus standi to maintain the suit, that the suit is not maintainable in its present form, is barred by limitation, and that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by virtue of their own acts and conduct. The defendants further sought special costs under Section 35(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On merits, it was averred that one Bunia Ranpat had been a tenant as Gair- e-Asr over the suit land, paying a yearly rent of Rs.75/-, and that he had expired approximately six to seven years prior, with his tenancy rights being inherited by the defendants. It was further contended that the defendants had purchased a portion of the suit land and thereby acquired joint ownership and possession to the extent of 55/512 share. The defendants specifically denied that the subsequent change in the khasra girdawari incorporating their names into the revenue record was illegal, void, or liable to be set aside.”

4. Having thoroughly scrutinized the pleadings, documents, and oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court framed the requisite issues to enable a judicious, accurate, and holistic adjudication of the matters in controversy, as set out below:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the property detailed in the head note of the plaint ?.

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file he present suit? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is time barred?

( NOTE: The onus of proof has not been specifically or expressly assigned in the judgments rendered by both the learned Courts below. )

1-A. Whether the defendants have become co-sharers in the suit land vide x sale deed No. 812 dated 8.9.70 and residing there on after constructing their residential houses? OPD.

5. Relief.

5. Both parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their re