PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Present appeal has been preferred by unsuccessful appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.1986 passed by learned Sub-Judge First Class, Jalandhar, whereby suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 19.04.1982 executed by respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 was not binding on the rights of appellant-plaintiff, was dismissed and by judgment and decree dated 03.08.1988 passed by learned District Judge,whereby first appeal preferred by appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed.

2. Appellant-plaintiff in suit for declaration claimed that suit property duly mentioned in head note of plaint along with other properties was owned by his father-Hari Chand and respondent-defendant No.1. That Hari Chand, during his lifetime, had executed Will dated 06.05.1957 and thereafter had executed Codicil on 01.01.1959 to his Will dated 06.05.1957. It was claimed that the shop in dispute as well as dodge car was given to appellant-plaintiff by deceased-Hari Chand vide Codicil dated 01.01.1959. That respondent-defendant No.1 was appointed as one of the executors under the Will by Hari Chand, who had died on 21.12.1963. Thereafter, property was inherited by sons of deceased-Hari Chand and they became full owners. However, appellant-plaintiff got his name entered as owner of the property in the property tax register as well as in register maintained by House Tax Authorities and started depositing the property tax. It was further claimed that subsequently respondent-defendant No.1 had sold the suit property in favour of respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 19.04.1982. That respondent-defendant No.1 had no right or interest in the suit property, therefore, property could not have been sold by respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondents-defendants No.2 and 3. It was asserted that no power of attorney was ever given by appellant-plaintiff to respondent-defendant No.1 and knowing fully well that respondent-defendant No.1 had no right, respondents-defendants No.2 and 3 had purchased the suit property with mala fide intentions. Accordingly, declaration that sale deed dated 19.04.1982 is notbinding on his rights was sought.

3. Respondent-defendant No.1 in his written statement took preliminary objections as regards to maintainability etc. It was asserted that memorandum dated 19.03.1964 was executed amongst heirs of Hari Chand at that time Codicil was not produced. The execution of Codicil was denied and same was stated to be forged and fabricated. It was claimed that suit property was part of joint property and share of appellant-plaintiff would be adjustable from other properties. Respondent-defendant No.1, however, admitted ownership of his father over suit property as well as execution of Will dated 06.05.1957. Execution of Codicil dated 01.01.1959 was, however, denied. The fact that Hari Chand had died on 21.12.1963 was also admitted. It was asserted that Codicil was never pressed or acted upon and parties had settled all their disputes vide award dated 02.05.1967 passed by Justice Kesho Ram Passi, relative of parties and at that time alleged Codicil was not produced or pressed. It was asserted that appellant-plaintiff had never filed suit during the lifetime of attesting witnesses of the Will. It was also claimed that respondent- defendant No.1 had rightly sold the suit property being owner and had claimed that suit property was let out by him and he was getting rent from the tenant for the last 14 years being owner of the suit property. Accordingly, dismissal ofsuit was prayed for.

4. Written statement was filed by respondents-defendants No.2 and 3, wherein preliminary objections as regards to maintainability etc. were raised. It was stated that suit property was under tenancy of Madan Lal under respondent-defendant No.1 and now under respondents-defendants No.2 and 3. Site plan of suit property was stated to be