The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Ghumarwin, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the suit land mentioned in the head note is ancestral property, plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 and defendant No. 1 constitute joint Hindu family, plaintiff No.1 is the owner in possession of half share of the suit land, defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest to transfer any part of the suit land to any person except a legal necessity, General Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 12.12.1985 registered on 26.12.1985 in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghumarwin, at serial number 150, page number 275, book number four, volume No. 15 is illegal having been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence by defendant No.2 upon defendant No.1, and the order dated 01.03.1986 passed by Tehsildar, Ghumarwin, inducting defendant No.2 as a non-occupancy tenant over the share of defendant No.1 in the suit land at the instance of defendant No.2 is illegal and against the law, sale deed executed by defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.5 and 6 dated 24 .06.1987 does not affect the rights of the parties and the sale deed dated 31.07.1987 executed in favour of defendant No.4 is without any legal necessity or benefit to the estate. A permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendant No.2 from selling any portion of the suit land to any person was also sought. It was asserted that plaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. They constitute a joint Hindu family. The suit land is ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. This land was earlier owned by Thohlar, the grandfather of plaintiff No.1, and devolved upon defendant No.1 after the death of Thohlar. Defendant No.1 is a simpleton who cannot distinguish between good and bad. Defendant No.2 took Defendant No.1 to his house and kept him as a slave. He got executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour, which was registered on 12.12.1985. This General Power of Attorney was executed by practising fraud upon defendant no.1. Defendant No.1 executed various sale deeds based upon the General Power of Attorney and also inducted defendant No.3 as a non-occupancy tenant on the suit land. These do not confer any right upon the defendants. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit is opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus-standi and jurisdiction, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiffs being estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was specifically denied that plaintiff No.1 is the son of defendant No.1 and that plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. It was also denied that plaintiff and defendants do not constitute a joint Hindu family or that the property in the hands of defendant No.1 was ancestral. It was asserted that defendant No.1 had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 to save his property. Defendant No.2 had contested many cases on behalf of Defendant No.1 and incurred the expenses of ₹1 lakh. Defendant No.2 was doing his best to save the suit land. Defendant No.2 had executed the