JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the appellants–respondents assail the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 17.01.1994 rendered by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Pehwa, came to be reversed. Through the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”), the appellants seek restoration of the decree lawfully and correctly granted by the learned Trial Court and redressal of the grave miscarriage of justice occasioned by the impugned appellate decision. It is respectfully submitted that the judgment and decree under challenge suffer from manifest perversity, patent errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidence on record, thereby giving rise to substantial questions of law warranting interference by this Court. The appellants, therefore, humbly pray that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the well-considered decree of the learned Trial Court be reinstated.

2. The factual and procedural chronology leading to the institution of the present appeal, delineated in brief for the sake of clarity, is set out hereinafter: -

“The genesis of the present appeal, shorn of unnecessary detail, lies in the institution of a suit for partition by the plaintiffs, wherein it was pleaded that the immovable property comprising three rooms along with the entire area measuring 42′ × 46′, as fully described in the plaint and situated in Village Bakhli, was originally owned and possessed by one Atma Ram. The lineage of the parties was duly pleaded and stands reflected in the pedigree table reproduced in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment.

It was further asserted that the suit property is ancestral in nature, having descended from one Ram, and that the parties to the suit derive their respective rights and interests therein through Atma Ram. The plaintiffs specifically pleaded that the respective shares of the parties in the said house are as under:-

It was categorically averred that the aforesaid property has never been subjected to partition and continues to remain joint. The plaintiffs further alleged that the parties had merely permitted Ram Kishan, son of Atma Ram, to use the suit property; however, the said Ram Kishan, acting in collusion with defendant No.1, subsequently began to deny and repudiate the ownership rights of the plaintiffs, thereby giving rise to the present lis.

Proceeding further with their case, the plaintiffs pleaded that they are residing away from the suit property, whereas defendant No.1, taking undue advantage of their absence, has allegedly procured certain judicial pronouncements asserting exclusive ownership over the suit property and has been extending threats to assume exclusive possession thereof. It was asserted that such unilateral claims and conduct on the part of defendant No.1 have cast a cloud upon the lawful rights and interests of the plaintiffs, thereby compelling them to seek partition of the joint holding.”

3. Pursuant to service of summons, the defendants contested the suit, placed their respective submissions on record as under:-

“Defendant No.1 entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a written statement.

Defendant No.10, on the other hand, filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs, whereas the remaining defendants failed to appear despite due service and were, accordingly, proceeded against ex parte.

Setting up a defence in clear opposition to the plaintiffs’ claim, defendant No.1 challenged the maintainability of the suit on multiple grounds, including misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and absence of any cause of action. It was further alleged that the suit had been instituted by s