R.L.ANAND,J. - (1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff Smt. Urmila Rani has filed the present Regular Second Appeal as an indigent person and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28. 9. 1984 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18. 12. 1981 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar dismissing the money suit of the plaintiff-appellant.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Urmila Rani wife of Krishan Kumar filed a suit for possession of the plot shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint and in the alternative she claimed Rs. 30,000/- by way of compensation on the allegations that the land measuring 10 marlas detailed in para 1 of the plaint was purchased by her from Ram Rattan vide registered sale deed dated 24. 3. 1958. She had been away from Jalandhar for many years and on return she found that defendants No. 1 to 3 had framed a development scheme including the aforesaid land of the plaintiff. The land was acquired. However, compensation had been illegally paid to defendants No. 4 to 7 who were not the owners of the plot in question. No notice was issued or served upon the plaintiff before the acquisition of the plot or before disbursing the compensation. She has a right either to recover the possession of the plot or the amount of compensation of Rs. 30,000/ -. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit on the ground that defendant No. 3 i. e. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had already deposited a compensation of Rs. 58,770. 33p with the Tribunal (District Judge, Jalandhar) for payment to the owners. The plaintiff was not the owner of the property of the plot in' dispute. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 filed a separate written statement and their stand was that the plaintiff purchased some land and the area acquired vested in defendant No. 2. The land of these defendants had been acquired and they had been paid compensation.
(3.) FROM the above pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land? OPp 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount of compensation for the acquisition of the land? If so to what amount? OPp 3. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPd 4. Whether the plaintiff is barred by her acts and conduct from filing the present suit? OPd 5. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit? OPd 6. Relief. ;