3. Aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed the present appeal.

4. For the sake of clarity, the par(cid:29)es shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. The trial Court record available on DMS has been perused carefully.

5. Subject ma(cid:11)er : Present lis pertains to land measuring 17 Bigha

12 Biswa situated in village Dhindsa, Tehsil, Rajpura, detailed in the plaint.

6. Chronological Events : In order to appreciate the controversy, the relevant events are tabulated chronologically:

7.1 Factual Matrix : As will be evident from above table, the controversy between the par(cid:29)es has a long and somewhat chequered history. Hakam Singh (defendant No.2) was originally the owner of land measuring 60 bigha 01 biswa situated in village Dhindsa, Tehsil Rajpura. The land in dispute, measuring 17 bigha 12 biswa, formed part of the said holding. On 04.04.1977, Hakam Singh suffered a decree in favour of his wife, Smt. Charan Kaur (defendant No.3), whereby she became owner of the en(cid:29)re land measuring 60 bigha 01 biswa. ThereaDer, on 12.06.1979, Smt. Charan Kaur entered into an agreement to sell the suit land measuring 17 bigha 12 biswa in favour of the present plain(cid:29)ffs for a considera(cid:29)on of ₹61,000/-. Hakam Singh himself was an aes(cid:29)ng witness to the said agreement to sell. Subsequently, on 28.08.1980, Baljinder Singh (defendant No.1), who was then a minor son of Hakam Singh and Smt. Charan Kaur, filed a suit challenging the earlier decree dated 04.04.1977. In that suit, both his parents were proceeded against ex parte and the decree dated 04.04.1977 was declared null and void. On the strength of this ex-parte decree dated 28.08.1980, defendant No.1 claimed himself to be owner of the en(cid:29)re land including the suit land.

7.2 Meanwhile, the plain(cid:29)ffs had ins(cid:29)tuted a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.06.1979 against Smt. Charan Kaur and Hakam Singh. That suit was decreed on 20.10.1982 aDer contest. The appeal preferred by Smt. Charan Kaur was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 08.11.1983. The Regular Second Appeal preferred before this Court was also dismissed on 07.08.1984. Thus, the decree for specific performance aained finality.

7.3 For implementa(cid:29)on of the decree, the plain(cid:29)ffs ini(cid:29)ated execu(cid:29)on proceedings. At that stage, defendant No.1 filed objec(cid:29)ons contending that the decree for specific performance was not binding upon him in view of the decree dated 28.08.1980 obtained in his favour. Smt. Charan Kaur also filed separate objec(cid:29)ons. The Execu(cid:29)ng Court, vide order dated 19.03.1986, dismissed the objec(cid:29)ons of both defendant No.1 and Smt. Charan Kaur. It is an admied posi(cid:29)on that no appeal or revision was preferred against the dismissal of those objec(cid:29)ons. Consequently, the order aained finality.

7.4 Pursuant to the decree of specific performance, and under direc(cid:29)ons of the Execu(cid:29)ng Court, a sale deed dated 12.08.1988 was executed through Court Commissioner in favour of the plain(cid:29)ffs in respect of the suit land.

7.5 It is also relevant to no(cid:29)ce that defendant No.1 had earlier filed Civil Suit No.46 of 1986 seeking rendi(cid:29)on of accounts for use and occupa(cid:29)on of the suit land from the plain(cid:29)ffs. In the plaint of that suit, he had specifically admied that the plain(cid:29)ffs were in possession of the suit land. Though that suit was ul(cid:29)mately dismissed in default on 18.12.1986, the admission contained in the plaint remained on record.

7.6 The plain(cid:29)ffs had also filed Civil Suit No.142 of 1987 seeking permanent injunc(cid:29)on to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession. However, due to non-produc(cid:29)on of evidence, that suit was dismissed on 10.01.1989.

7.7 ThereaDer, on 03.05.1989, the plain(cid:29)ffs ins(cid:29)tuted the present suit seeking a declara(cid:29)on that they were owners in