The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration through their attorney, Kehar Singh, asserting that the plaintiffs along with defendant No.3 are the lawful owners in possession of the suit land, fully detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint. The plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 16.06.1987 allegedly executed in favour of defendant No.1, and the subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, are forged, fictitious, illegal, null and void documents, having no binding effect upon the rights and ownership of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3. Consequential relief was also sought to the effect that the mutations and revenue entries sanctioned on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds be declared ineffective and non-binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs, along with a decree for possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Rasila, Banka, Gopi and Hoshnak, sons of Khushala, and Jeewan, Jaggu, Pheru @ Faggu and Moti, sons of Jawala, were the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3. It was specifically pleaded that Moti, Banka, Gopi and Hoshnak had died in Pakistan; Moti died unmarried; Jaggu died in the year 1974 at Lahauri Chack; Pheru @ Faggu died at Pathankot during the Indo-Pak war of 1971; Rasila died on 26.01.1974; and Gian Chand died in the year 1972 at Pathankot. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land had originally been allotted to their predecessors as evacuee property and, during consolidation proceedings, the same was re-allotted in lieu of the original allotment. Upon the demise of the original allottees/predecessors, the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 succeeded to the estate and became owners of the suit land by inheritance.

2.1 It was further alleged that defendant No.1, taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs from the village, managed to fabricate and forge the sale deeds dated 16.06.1987 pertaining to the suit property. The plaintiffs specifically averred that the alleged executants/vendors of the sale deeds had already died long prior to the execution and registration of the impugned documents and, therefore, the sale deeds were wholly forged, fabricated and non est in the eyes of law. On these broad allegations, the present suit came to be filed.

2.2 Upon notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and contested the suit by filing a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit had not been instituted by a duly authorised attorney and that Kehar Singh was neither competent nor authorised to file and prosecute the present proceedings on behalf of the plaintiffs. The General Power of Attorney relied upon by Kehar Singh was alleged to be forged and fabricated. A further objection regarding limitation was also raised.

2.3 On merits, however, the defendants admitted that Rasila, Banka, Gopi and Hoshnak, sons of Khushala, and Jeewan, Jaggu, Pheru @ Faggu and Moti, sons of Jawala, were the original owners of the suit land. Nevertheless, the defendants specifically denied the allegation that the said persons had died prior to the execution of the impugned sale deeds. It was pleaded that the sale deeds dated 16.06.1987 had been validly and lawfully executed by the original owners in favour of defendant No.1 for valid consideration and that the said transaction was legal, genuine and binding. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs and their attorney, Kehar Singh, were fully aware of the execution of the sale deeds and that the present suit had been instituted falsely, unlawfully and with mala fide intention to harass the answering defendants. It w