RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession in equal shares of suit land and that the revenue entries in this regard are liable to be corrected and the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land in any manner, has been decreed.
(2.) BRIEFLY , stated that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession in equal share of land measuring 20 kanals 1 marla fully detailed in the head note of the plaint on the allegations that originally Mehar Singh was owner of the suit land comprising in Khasra No. 1076/120 and after the consolidation, suit land was accorded new Khasra numbers. Earlier Mehar Singh mortgaged the suit land to Albel Singh, the grand father of the plaintiff-appellants No. 2 to 6 and husband of plaintiff appellant No. 1 bearing mutation No. 6601 Kartar Singh had also died on 8.11.1998 and his inheritance had devolved upon the plaintiff-appellants who have been wrongly shown as mortgages. The plaintiff- appellants have requested defendants many times to get the entries in the revenue record changed in their name, but to no effect and accordingly prayer for decreeing the suit of the appellants was made. On notice, defendant appeared and contested the suit by raising preliminary objections as to suit being nullity filed against dead person, no cause of action has accrued, suit is not maintainable, it is barred by limitation, plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct and the suit is barred by principle of res judicata. On merits it was alleged that previously Mehar Singh and after his death defendant being his legal heir is owner of the suit land. It is denied that Mehar Singh had mortgaged the suit land with Albel Singh or his being sold the land to Albel Singh. Thus, the entries regarding mortgage in favour of Albel Singh and after his death in favour of his legal heirs are wrong. All other averments were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of evidence by the parties and hearing arguments, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.;