- (1.) Having been non suited by both the learned courts below recording concurrent findings, whereby their suit for declaration was dismissed, plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-appellants filed the suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, challenging the validity of mutation No. 22 dated 21.5.1984 sanctioned by the competent authority. Having been served in the suit, defendants appeared and filed the written statement raising more than one preliminary objections including that of jurisdiction of the civil court. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 are owners in possession of the land detailed in the head note of plaint? OPP 2. Whether the mutation affected after 1983-84 qua the suit land is illegal, null and void? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the jurisdiction of civil court is barred u/s. 25 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and u/s. 26 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties? OPD 8. Relief."
(2.) In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. Accordingly, suit was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.01.2010. Dis-satisfied, plaintiffs filed their first appeal which also came to be dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.03.2014. Hence, this second appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned courts below proceeded on a misconceived approach, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants. Sufficient and cogent evidence was brought on record to decree the suit. However, since learned courts below miserably failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct perspective, impugned judgments and decrees were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.;