Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) The present regular second appeal has been directed against the judgments and decrees whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial court has been dismissed by the first appellate court, affirming the findings recorded by the court below.
(2.) The case set up by the plaintiffs-appellants is that decree dated 20.3.1987 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar in civil suit dated 12.3.1987 titled "Kalyan Singh v. Bachna @ Bachan Singh is illegal, null and void and has no effect on rights of the plaintiffs as the suit property is ancestral, joint Hindu family and coparcenary property of Bachna @ Bachan Singh. Defendant No. 1 is paternal uncle of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 is their father. Defendant No. 1 by way of fraud got a collusive decree in his favour from grand father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs came to know regarding the said decree in May 1999 and requested defendant No. 1 to admit their claim but he refused.
(3.) Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement challenging locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit; suit being barred by time as well as not maintainable. It was averred that the suit property is the self acquired property of Bachna @ Bachan Singh purchased through sale in the year 1964-65. Father of the plaintiffs had been making frivolous complaints against Bachna @ Bachan Singh owner of the suit property. Defendant No. 2 has sold the property which he received from Bachna @ Bachan Singh. Defendant No. 2 did not attend bhog ceremony of his father Bachna @ Bachan Singh which was performed by the answering defendant. The decree passed during life time of Bachna @ Bachan Singh is valid, legal and binding upon every body, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.;