by learned District Judge, Sonipat vide judgment & decree dated 30.01.2025, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court.

2. Against the aforesaid concurrent findings, only the vendee- defendant No.1 – Sunita Devi has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal.

3. In order to avoid confusion, par+es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

4.1 Plain+ffs Nityanand Gautam and others filed the suit claiming to be heirs of Mamul Singh, relying upon the pedigree table given in para 1 of the plaint, and asserted ownership of the suit land. According to them, their ancestors, who were Rai Sahibs of the revenue estate of village Garhi Brahamanan, Tehsil and District Sonipat had donated the suit land to Ganga Mandir. Since then, the property has been con+nuously used as temple land, with visible signs of a temple exis+ng at the spot. It was further claimed that this Mandir was their personal property. Revenue records also reflect the dona+on in the name of Ganga Mandir, with con+nuous entries to that effect.

4.2 The plain+ffs challenged subsequent transac+ons, asser+ng that once the land was donated, ownership rights ceased to exist with the donor or his successors. Despite this, Rishi Parkash (one of their ancestors) allegedly executed a Will in favour of his wife Vidyawa+, on whose death the land was mutated in her name, and later in favour of her daughter Rama Sharma based on the Will of Vidyawa+. A:er Rama Sharma’s death, it was mutated in favour of her son Kuber Sharma - defendant No. 4 (performa respondent N: 9 herein). The plain+ffs contended that all these muta+ons were illegal, void, and non-binding. On the basis of such entries, Kuber Sharma executed a sale deed dated 14.10.2015 in favour of defendant No. 1 Sunita Devi (appellant herein), which was mutated on 20.11.2015 vide Muta+on No. 11095. The plain+ffs assailed the sale deed as well as the consequent muta+on to be void ab ini+o.

4.3 Plain+ffs further disputed the entries showing defendants No. 2 and 3 – Dayanand Chauhan & Bhupender (performa respondents N: 7 & 8 herein) as gair marusi tenants, sta+ng that the land had always remained gair mumkin being temple land and was never under their cul+va+on.

4.4 The plain+ffs alleged collusion between defendant No. 1’s husband (a property dealer) and defendants No. 2 to 4, whereby the land was first wrongly mutated to the extent of 1/6th share in favour of defendant No. 4 and then sold to defendant No. 1. They emphasized that once the land stood gi:ed to Ganga Mandir, neither Rishi Parkash nor his successors had any authority to deal with it. They further ques+oned the legi+macy of defendant No. 4’s parentage, who claimed to be son of Sa+sh Kumar son of Rishi Parkash, asser+ng that Sa+sh Kumar was not the son of Rishi Parkash.

4.5 On the above pleadings, plain+ffs sought a decree of declara+on that Muta+on No. 8385, Sale Deed dated 14.10.2015, and Muta+on No. 11095 dated 20.11.2015 are illegal, null and void. They also prayed for mandatory injunc+on direc+ng defendant No. 1 to remove founda+ons raised over the suit property and permanent injunc+on restraining defendant No. 1 from changing the nature of the suit property or raising further construc+on.

5.1 The defendants N: 1 to 3 contested the suit.

5.2 Defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) submiFed that she had already sold a plot measuring 224 sq. yards (7 marlas) out of the suit land, comprised in Rect. & Killa No. 40//3/7/2 (0-3), 7/2/1 (4-3), vide registered sale deed dated 22.09.2016, to Satyawan (1/10th share) and his wife Smt. Sushma (9/10th share), both residents of village Guhna, District Sonipat, who therea:er constructed a house on the site. She further stated that she had sold another two plots of 100 sq. yards each on 16.10.2016—one to Smt. Amit (wife of Rishikesh) and another to Savita (wife of Anil Kumar)—who also raised construc+ons. She denied the plain+ffs’ pedigree table, their claim of gi:, and asser+on of ownership. It was s