Court. The record of the trial Court, as available on the Document Management System (DMS), has been duly perused.

3. Pleadings : A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the plain! had ini!ally ins!tuted a civil suit seeking a decree of permanent injunc!on so as to restrain defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from aliena!ng the suit land situated within the revenue estate of village Bhadaur, Tehsil and District Panipat, in favour of the defendants or any other person. During the pendency of the suit, the suit land was sold and leased out. Consequently, the plaint was amended and addi!onal relief was claimed, seeking a declara!on to the effect that the sale deed dated 27.11.1984 and the lease deed dated 29.05.1985, executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.

5, 6, and 8 to 15, are null, illegal and void.

4.1 According to the plain!ffs, they are co-sharers and co-owners of the suit land measuring 38 kanal 11 marla, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint. It was pleaded that their forefathers were the real owners of the suit property, which had been given to one Phulla, the father-in-law of defendant No. 1, in Dholi. The plain!ffs claimed that they have now become owners by way of survivorship and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were merely Dholidars over the suit land. It was further pleaded that Zile Singh, the husband of defendant No. 3, had expired and his three minor children were accordingly impleaded as defendants.

4.2 It was alleged that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 had illegally executed a lease deed dated 29.05.1985 in favour of Sarupa and Nihala (defendant Nos. 5 and 6). It was further alleged that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had also illegally executed a sale deed dated 27.11.1984 in favour of defendant Nos. 8 to 15 (now appellants). According to the plain!ffs, both the said transac!ons were null, illegal and void and were liable to be set aside.

5. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit by pleading that Surja, the husband of defendant No. 1, was the owner in possession of the suit land, and prior thereto, Phulla, the father of Surja, was the owner in possession. It was claimed that Surja and Phulla might have been owners as Dholidars. They admi7ed that Phulla was gi8ed a part of the suit land along with possession. In the alterna!ve, they also set up a plea of ownership by way of adverse possession.

6. The remaining defendants, including the subsequent purchasers, also resisted the suit. Defendant Nos. 8 to 15 claimed that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable considera!on, having purchased land measuring 07 kanal 17 marla vide sale deed dated 27.11.1984. They asserted that the plain!ffs were neither owners nor co-owners of the suit land and denied that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were Dholidars. On these premises, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. In the rejoinder, the plain!ffs reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the stand taken by the defendants.

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the par!es, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. The par!es were afforded due opportunity to lead their respec!ve evidence, which was duly considered by the trial Court.

9. Findings of the Courts Below : On the material issues, the learned trial Court returned categorical findings that the plain!ffs were co- owners and co-sharers of the suit land; that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were merely Dholidars thereof; and that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had illegally alienated the suit land. It was further held that the lease deed dated 29.05.1985 as well as the sale deed dated 27.11.1984 were null, illegal and void ab ini(cid:24)o. Consequently, both instruments were set aside and, on the basis of these findings, the suit was decreed.

10.1 Apprecia(cid:24)on of Evidence by the First Appellate Court : Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos. 8 to 17 preferred an appeal. While re-apprecia!ng the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court observed that the principal controve