JUDGMENT :

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants, who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaitu, whereby their suit for declaration was dismissed, as well as by the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing their first appeal.

2. The plaintiffs had sought a declaration to the effect that they, along with the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, are co-sharers in the land fully described in the plaint. They further sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 17.12.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void, and not binding upon their rights. A further declaration was sought that the sale deed dated 15.11.2013 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Surinder Pal Singh and others is also illegal, null and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants. It was pleaded that Gurbachan Singh- defendant No.1 was holding the suit land as Karta, as the property was ancestral/HUF/coparcenary in nature.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs-appellants that Jaswinder Kaur, daughter of Gurbachan Singh, and Jasmail Kaur, wife of Gurbachan Singh, had interest in the suit property during their lifetime. Jaswinder Kaur died in the year 2007 and Jasmail Kaur died in the year 2013, and both held 1/3rd share each in the suit property, while the remaining 1/3rd share belonged to Gurbachan Singh. It was asserted that upon the death of Jaswinder Kaur, her 1/3rd share devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.3, who are her son and daughters of Jaswinder Kaur. It was further asserted that upon the death of Jasmail Kaur, her 1/3rd share was inherited by plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 in equal shares, thereby rendering the parties to be co-sharers in the suit land.

4. The plaintiffs further asserted that defendant No.1 was an aged person, more than 85 years old, illiterate and not in a sound disposing state of mind. Taking undue advantage of his condition, defendant No.2 allegedly got the sale deed dated 17.12.2012 executed in her favour from defendant No.1. It was also pleaded that Jagdev Singh, son of Bikkar Singh, was never adopted by Gurbachan Singh, and that defendant No.2 is falsely claiming Jagdev Singh, who is her husband, to be the adopted son of Gurbachan Singh.

5. The plaintiffs further contended that Paramjit Kaur-defendant No.2 wrongly executed the sale deed dated 15.11.2013 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 i.e. Surinder Pal Singh and others. Accordingly, they sought a declaration that the plaintiffs along with defendant No.3 are co-sharers in the suit land and that both sale deeds dated 17.12.2012 and 15.11.2013 are void and non operative against their rights.

6. It was asserted that the sale deeds were without consideration and fraudulent in nature, as neither any consideration was paid nor possession was delivered in pursuance thereof. The sale deeds were allegedly executed only to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants and defendant No.3. Connivance among defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 was also alleged. It was further pleaded that the sale deeds are liable to be declared non est, having been executed during the pendency of litigation.

7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2, in their joint written statement, claimed that the suit property was exclusively owned by defendant No.1. The relationship of Jaswinder Kaur and Jasmail Kaur with defendant No.1 was admitted. However, it was asserted that the parties are not governed by Hindu Law but by custom, namely Riwaj-e-Aam Zimidara, being agriculturists. It was specifically denied that the suit land was ancestral or coparcenary property; rather, it was pleaded that the suit property was the self-acquired property of defendant No.1. It was further asserted that neither Jaswinder Kaur nor Jasmail Kaur had any right, title or interes