JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. Appellants-defendants institute this Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after to be referred as “RSA”) to assail the concurrent findings of the Courts below, culminating in the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2000 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated 09.10.1996 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hoshiarpur was upheld. It is alleged that learned First Appellate Court has perpetuated a declaratory judgment founded upon conjectures rather than the material on record. The Appellants respectfully submit that the impugned judgments and decrees are vitiated by patent perversity, thereby presenting substantial questions of law that warrant a de novo examination by this Court.

2. The quintessential facts constituting the claim of the Respondents-Plaintiffs before the learned Court of first instance are as follows:-

Plaintiff-Mohinder Singh instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 16.04.1993, purportedly executed by defendant No.1, his father, in favour of defendants No.2 to 4, is null, void, and inoperative, the suit property being joint Hindu family coparcenary property and the sale having been effected without legal necessity or consideration. Consequential relief of joint possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 4 marlas, as detailed in the plaint, was also sought. It was averred that an earlier suit for declaration regarding the joint Hindu family nature of the property, instituted on 24.05.1989, was pending, rendering the impugned sale hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.

3. Upon service of notice, defendants No.2 to 4 entered appearance and filed a joint written statement, whereas defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte. The pleadings set forth by defendants No.2 to 4 are summarized as under:-

The contesting defendants raised preliminary objections regarding improper valuation, want of locus standi, and estoppel. On merits, they asserted that the sale deed was for valid consideration, denied knowledge of prior litigation, claimed bona fide purchase, and affirmed their peaceful possession of the suit property.

4. The defensive stance adopted by defendants No. 2 to 4 was met with a categorical replication, wherein the plaintiffs effectively neutralized the defendants' averments while concurrently reinstating the integrity of the original plaint. With the pleadings thus complete and the contest between the parties fully crystallized, the learned Trial Court proceeded to settle the triable issues on 07.10.1995 as follows:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP.

(2) Whether the suit property is joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property? OPP.

(3) Whether the plaintiffs entitled to a consequential relief of joint possession? OPP

(4) Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of consequential relief of possession ?OPD.

(5) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi file the present suit? OPD.

(6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct ? OPD.

(7) Whether the defendants are bona fide purchaser of the suit property for a valuable consideration ? OPD.

(8) Whether the defendants are in peaceful possession of the suit property? OPD.

(9) Relief.

5. Post-crystallization of the triable issues, both parties were afforded a plenary opportunity to adduce evidence in substantiation of their respective contentions. On a holistic and discerning appreciation of the evidentiary matrix, the learned Trial Court ‘decreed’ the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs. This adjudication was subsequently assailed by the appellants-defendants; however, the learned First Appellate Court, on a de novo evaluation of the record, found the findings of the Court of first instance to be impregnable and ‘dismissed’ the appeal.

5.1. Constrained by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, which the appellants/defendants contend are fundamentall