JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. Aggrieved by the reversal of the well-reasoned judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 25.02.1999 by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide the impugned judgment dated 23.10.2000, the Appellant-Defendant begs to prefer this Regular Second Appeal (“RSA” for short). It is respectfully submitted that the learned First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by over-setting findings of fact based on a flawed evidentiary appreciation, thereby occasioning a failure of justice. The Appellant, therefore, seeks the intervention of this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and to restore the decree dated 25.02.1999, ensuring the lawful resolution of the dispute.

2. The material facts and the sequence of events leading to the present appeal are succinctly summarized as follows:-

“The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No.1, Ishar Kaur, was the owner of several parcels of land comprising khata Nos. 251/281, 252/282, and 609/677, as detailed in the plaint. Ishar Kaur sold portions of the suit land to Gurdev Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, vide registered sale deed dated 01.12.1986 (Ex.P1), and subsequently to Amarjit Singh vide sale deed dated 31.07.1991 (Ex.P2). Following the death of Gurdev Singh, his daughters, Paramjit Kaur and Sharanjit Kaur, relinquished their interest in favour of plaintiff No.1, leaving the plaintiffs in lawful possession. Defendant No.1 thereafter purported to sell a portion of the same land to defendant No.2, Jagir Singh, vide sale deed dated 21.01.1991 (Ex.D1). Plaintiffs contend that the sale to defendant No.2 was illegal and void, as Ishar Kaur had no ownership in the land sold, her interest having been partially transferred under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Consequently, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession, and for permanent injunction restraining dispossession by the defendants. Defendant No.1 has been formally relinquished as a party in the suit.”

3. Upon service of summons, defendant No.2 contested the suit by filing a written statement, denying that defendant No.1, Ishar Kaur, executed sale deed Ex.P1 in favour of Gurdev Singh, asserting that the deed was false, fabricated, and had been denied by Ishar Kaur before the revenue authorities during mutation proceedings. He denied knowledge of any sale deed in favour of Amarjit Singh or the plaintiffs, asserting that his own sale deed Ex.D1 was valid, executed for consideration, and admitted by defendant No.1. He further contended that the suit was not maintainable, barred by misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, estoppel, and absence of possession by the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs filed a replication, expressly controverting the contentions raised by the defendants and reiterating the allegations as set forth in the plaint. Thereafter, upon a meticulous and comprehensive examination of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and oral submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, the learned trial Court proceeded to frame issues for adjudication. The framing of such issues was undertaken with a view to ensuring a precise, structured, and exhaustive determination of the rights, obligations, and claims of the respective parties, as well as to facilitate a fair and just resolution of the present dispute, which are enumerated as follows:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that they are owners in possession of land measuring 1B-7B-0B owners on the basis of sale-deed dated 01.12.1986 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Gurdev Singh to the extent of 0B-13B-6-2/3B and on the basis of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour fo Amarjit Singh, who subsequently sold in favour of plaintiff to the extent of 0B-13B-13/1/3B as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the sale deed dated 21.1.1991 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether