Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.)Defendants No.6 and 7 are in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below, whereby suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was decreed by both the learned Courts below.
(2.)Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned first appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff was owner in possession of half share of agricultural land measuring 40 kanals 1 marla comprised in Khewat No.71 Khata No.126, rect No.9, as detailed in Para No.2(A) of the plaint. He was also claiming himself to be owner in possession to the extent of 12 kanal 17 marlas in the total land measuring 112 kanal comprised in Khewat No.255/354, rect No.36, as detailed in Para No.2(B) of the plaint. It was further urged that he never sold nor leased out any part of the land owned by him. It was further urged that the plaintiff never executed any document related to the land in question such as GPA etc. in favour of any person whomsoever. About two weeks ago, the plaintiff went to the village Patwari to obtain the revenue records of the land in dispute, as he wanted to get his share partitioned. He was shocked to see that he was not recorded as owner in possession of the land in dispute. On further enquiry, he came to know that defendant No.1 had managed a false and fabricated GPA dated 27.09.1990 allegedly executed in his favour by the plaintiff. The plaintiff urged that he never executed any such GPA and it does not bears his signatures. Rather, on the date of execution of the said GPA, he was minor and as such was not competent to execute any document, but defendant No.1 in collusion with other defendants and revenue officials executed two sale deeds and a lease deed of the land in question, the details as follows :
(a) The defendant No.1 sold land measuring 12 kanals 17 marlas out of the land in question to defendant No.2 vide sale deed bearing vasika No.841 dated 06.08.2003 and mutation No.1452 was subsequently sanctioned.

(b) The defendant No.1 further sold land measuring 20 kanals 1 marla to defendant No.3 vide sale deed bearing vasika No.141 dated 19.04.1991 and mutation No.819 was subsequently sanctioned.

(c) The defendant No.1 further leased out land measuring 13 kanals 11 marlas to defendant No.3 vide lease deed bearing vasika No.14 dated 19.04.1991 and mutation No.820 was subsequently sanctioned.

(3.)The plaintiff further came to know that defendant No.3 sold the land in question to rest of the defendants, the details as follows :
(a) The defendant No.3 sold land measuring 8 kanals to defendants No.4 & 5 vide sale deed bearing vasika No.1661 dated 14.10.1997.

(b) The defendant No.3 further sold land measuring 13 kanal to defendants No.6 & 6 vide sale deed bearing vasika No.3709 dated 18.10.1995 and mutation No.1247 was sanctioned.

(c) The defendant No.3 further sold land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas to defendants No.8, 9 and Lakhmi predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.10 to 13 vide sale deed bearing vasika No.1550 dated 13.06.1995 and mutation No.1169 was sanctioned.

(d) The defendant No.3 also sold land measuring 5 kanals 18 marlas to defendants No.14 & 15 vide sale deed bearing vasika No.950 dated 14.06.1994 and mutation No.917 was sanctioned.

(e) The defendant No.3 exchanged 10 kanals 19 marlas land out of the land in question with defendants No.8, 9 and Lakhmi predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.10 to 13 vide rapat No.763 dated 13.08.1994 and mutation No.938 was sanctioned.