JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. Commencing with a formulation designed for judicial clarity and precision, it is pertinent to note at the outset that the present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1994 rendered by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the findings of the trial Court were affirmed in their entirety. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.1992 passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra, had dismissed the suit instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking a declaratory decree coupled with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

1.1. By way of the present appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs seek to challenge the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, contending that such findings are fraught with manifest errors of law, misappreciation of evidence, and factual inconsistencies, thereby rendering the impugned judgments and decrees unsustainable in law. The appellants submit that the learned Courts below failed to properly consider the material placed on record, misconstrued the pleadings, and ignored relevant legal principles, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice which this Court is called upon to rectify in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

2. At the very threshold, it is pertinent to note that the appellants/plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking a declaratory decree, asserting their absolute ownership and possession over agricultural land measuring 30 kanals and 04 marlas, in equal shares, forming part of the larger tract of land described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. In addition, the appellants/plaintiffs have sought rectification of the sale deeds dated 18.12.1979 and 07.03.1980, executed in favour of the defendant, contending that the lands actually intended to be conveyed through these instruments correspond to Khasra Nos. 17, 18, and 23, and that the said deeds require correction to accurately reflect this factual position.

2.1. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise creating any third-party rights in respect of the suit land, pending adjudication of the plaintiffs’ substantive rights. It is submitted that the reliefs sought are both lawful and necessary to protect the appellants’/plaintiffs’ interests, and the learned Courts below erred in failing to appreciate the veracity of the claims and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the reliefs sought.

3. To crystallize the factual matrix in its essential contours, the narrative of the present case may be succinctly delineated as follows:-

“That one Siri Ram, father of defendant Ramjit Lal, was the owner to the extent of half share in agricultural land measuring 102 kanals 10 marlas, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint qua ½ share. On 24.05.1977, Siri Ram executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with certain other vendees, namely, Skrudin, Rahamdin, and others. By virtue of the said conveyance, he transferred 22 kanals 10 marlas representing his half share out of the total extent of 45 kanals described in paragraph No.3 of the plaint comprising land falling in khasra Nos. 18/1, 23, 24, 25, 16, 17, 19 and 19 min. Under this sale deed, 12 kanals 4 marlas were purchased by the plaintiffs for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/–.

Siri Ram remained owner in possession of 28 kanals 15 marlas at the time of his demise in the year 1978, which devolved upon the defendant as legal heir. Thereafter, on 18.12.1979, the defendant executed a second sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.38,500/–, whereby 12 kanals of land again shown as comprising khasra Nos. 16, 17 and 19 stood conveyed. Similarly, vide a subsequent sale deed dated 07.03.1980, the defendant transf