JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. 

1. This consolidated Judgment governs the adjudication of the above-captioned Regular Second Appeals (for short to be referred as “RSAs”), each arising from an identical factual and legal matrix. Given the commonality of parties, the coextensive nature of the impugned judgments and decrees, and the consent of learned counsel for joint consideration, these appeals are being disposed of collectively in the interest of judicial economy, uniformity in legal interpretation, and procedural efficiency.

2. At the instance of learned counsel for the parties in both RSAs, the factual matrix for the purposes of this consolidated order has been carefully extracted from the records of both appeals, as it presents the most complete, accurate, and coherent account of the material facts. While the issues in each appeal may differ, the facts so delineated are adopted collectively to constitute the representative factual foundation for the adjudication of the present matters, ensuring a comprehensive and uniform basis for determination.

3. The appellants/defendants in the above-captioned RSAs have filed the present appeals assailing the impugned judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Appellate Courts.

4. The instant Regular Second Appeal (for short to be referred as “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellants-defendants No.6 and 7 to impugn the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2025 rendered by the learned Additional District, Sonipat whereby the findings of the trial Court were unequivocally affirmed. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sonipat, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking a declaratory decree along with consequential relief or decreee for permanent injunction. The appellants now challenges the concurrent findings of both Courts below as being legally unsustainable and factually erroneous.

5. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of declaration and consequential reliefs, asserting that the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009, rendered by Shri Mohit Aggarwal, then learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sonipat, is wholly erroneous, illegal, and void ab initio, and, therefore, not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek a declaration to the effect that the said judgment and decree is liable to be set aside on the grounds enumerated in the plaint.

5.1. Further, the plaintiffs pray for a declaration that Mutation No. 6977, erroneously recorded and sanctioned vide order dated 21.08.2010 by the Circle Revenue Officer, based upon the impugned judgment and decree of 24.12.2009, is likewise illegal, void ab initio, and unenforceable against the rights of the plaintiffs, and is liable to be set aside. In addition, the plaintiffs seek a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns, or anyone claiming under them from selling, mortgaging, transferring, leasing, or otherwise encumbering the suit land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, by virtue of or relying upon the wrongful and illegal Mutation No. 6977.

6. Succinctly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is as under:-

“That one Puran (now deceased), being the absolute owner of the suit land detailed in paragraph 1 of the plaint, executed a Will in favour of Defendant No.5, Jai Karan, on 11.12.1997, by virtue of which Jai Karan became the absolute owner of the suit land upon the testator’s death. Mutation No. 5246 in respect of the said Will was duly recorded and sanctioned by the revenue authorities. Pursuant thereto, Defendant No.5 Jai Karan sold portions of the suit land to Rajendra Singh through Sale Deed No. 2575 dated 25.08.2003 (Mutation No. 5591), who in turn conveyed certain portions to Ansal Housing Estate Pvt. Ltd. vide Sale Deed No. 8612 dated 20.10.2005.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs acquired specific portions of the suit land through valid sale and e