JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below, on the grounds that such findings are vitiated by errors of law, misappreciation of evidence, and manifest legal infirmities warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

2. Briefly stated, the appellants–plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking a declaratory decree, accompanied by consequential relief of permanent injunction, contending that the defendants have been wrongly recorded as co-owners of the suit land as fully detailed in the plaint. It is asserted that the appellants–plaintiffs have been in actual, uninterrupted, and physical possession of the suit land since the time of their forefathers, in the capacity of ‘Gair Marusi’ occupants, without paying any rent or consideration to any person other than the Government. The suit, therefore, seeks to declare the appellants–plaintiffs as rightful owners and to restrain the defendants from asserting any alienable rights or creating encumbrances over the suit land.

3. The plaintiffs further contended that they acquired rights as occupancy tenants from their uncle, Fakira, pursuant to Mutation No. 6304, sanctioned on 04.02.1981, who, prior thereto, was in cultivating possession of the suit land as a ‘Gair Marusi’ occupant. It is asserted that the plaintiffs have been in uninterrupted possession of the suit land for over three decades, thereby acquiring ownership rights under the law. Consequently, the entries recorded in the revenue records in favour of the defendants, showing them as owners of the suit land, are alleged to be illegal, null, and void. The plaintiffs also seek consequential relief in the form of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering, or creating any third-party rights over the suit land.

4. The suit was vigorously contested by the defendants, who denied the plaintiffs’ claim to any right, title, or interest in the suit land, asserting that they themselves are the exclusive owners in actual possession thereof. It was further pleaded that Fakira, from whom the plaintiffs claimed occupancy rights, died issue-less in the year 1980. Consequently, it was submitted that Fakira’s tenancy rights as a ‘Gair Marusi’ occupant stood extinguished upon his death, and the suit land reverted to the original owners. The defendants further asserted that they have been in uninterrupted possession of the suit land since that time.

5. Upon a careful and exhaustive examination of the pleadings of the parties, coupled with a meticulous appraisal of their respective contentions, Court found it necessary to crystallize the precise points of divergence between the parties. In order to facilitate a structured, focused, and legally coherent adjudication of the dispute, the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, was pleased to frame the following issues for determination:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD

(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

(v) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act, conduct and admissions? OPD

(vii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs are bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder for the necessary party? OPD

(viii) Whether the plaintiffs or their forefather have never remained in possession of the suit land at any point of time? OPD

(ix) Relief

6. Following the framing of issues, both parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to adduce their respective oral and documentary evidence. Upon