JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This consolidated judgment shall govern the disposal of the above-captioned Regular Second Appeals (hereinafter referred to as the “RSAs”), which emanate from a common factual substratum and involve substantially similar questions of law. In view of the identity of parties, the overlapping nature of the impugned judgments and decrees, and with the consent of learned counsel, the appeals are being adjudicated and disposed of conjointly to ensure consistency, judicial economy, and procedural expediency.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the factual matrix has been succinctly drawn from the records of both appeals and is treated as the representative foundation for the present adjudication. Though certain issues may vary in each appeal, the material facts are substantially common and are, therefore, collectively adopted for purposes of this consolidated determination.

3. The appellants, by way of the present RSAs, assail the judgments and decrees passed by the learned First Appellate Courts, impugning the correctness and legality thereof.

4. The plaintiff, Ram Chander, instituted a civil suit No.779 of 1987 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from securing the sanction of mutation in their favour on the basis of an alleged collusive judgment and decree dated 09.10.1985.

5. Succinctly stated, Dharam Chand was the owner in possession of the suit property and had entered into an agreement to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff on 30.06.1984. Upon his failure and refusal to execute the sale deed in terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance on 02.04.1985, which culminated in a decree dated 27.01.1987. The appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987, thereby affirming the plaintiff’s entitlement.

5.1 During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the defendants allegedly instituted a collusive suit against Dharam Chand on 08.10.1985 in respect of the same property and procured a decree dated 09.10.1985. It is the plaintiff’s case that the said decree was obtained with the ulterior object of frustrating the execution of the decree for specific performance passed in his favour, and that the defendants are now seeking to have mutation sanctioned on its basis.

5.2. It is further averred that Lachhman, the father of Dharam Chand, is still alive and that Dharam Chand had acquired the suit property from him through a consent decree, thereby becoming the exclusive owner thereof. Consequently, the defendants are asserted to have no right, title, or interest in the suit property. Hence, the present suit.

6. Upon due service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and contested the claim by filing a detailed written statement. At the outset, preliminary objections were raised assailing the locus standi of the plaintiff, the maintainability of the suit, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the same. On merits, the defendants emphatically denied the exclusive ownership and possession of Dharam Chand, contending that the suit property formed part of ancestral coparcenary property of a Joint Hindu Family, in which both Dharam Chand and the defendants were co-sharers. It was further averred that Dharam Chand had validly suffered a decree dated 09.10.1985 in favour of the answering defendants, and by virtue thereof, the defendants had acquired ownership and possession of the suit land. On this premise, it was asserted that neither the plaintiff nor Dharam Chand subsisted with any enforceable right, title, or interest in the property in dispute.

7. In replication, the plaintiff comprehensively traversed the preliminary objections and substantive assertions advanced in the written statement, categorically denying the same and reiterating, in unequivocal terms, the material averments contained in the plaint. Upon the pleadings being thus completed, the learned trial Court, w