- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J.- This is defendant's second appeal. Plaintiff-respon dent filed a suit No, 486 of 1969 Yogendra Pal v. Bidha which was tried by the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Aligarh. The plaintiff-respondent sought a relief for eviction of the defendant from the property in dispute described at the foot of the plaint after removal of construction over it and also prayed for recovery of mesne profits for wrongful user of the land by the defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land in dispute and the suit is barred by time.
(2.) THE trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the land in dispute and also held that the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of Civil Judge, Aligarh, being Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1977, Yogendra Pal v. Bidha. The appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court on both the counts and decreed the suit of the plaintiff directing the defendant to hand over possession of the land in dispute to the plaintiff and remove the debris constructed by the defendant on the land in dispute. How ever, no decree was passed for mesne profits. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the defendant has preferred this second present appeal.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri V. K. Gupta and learned counsel for the respondents, Sri S. U. Khan respectively in support of the appeal and in opposition thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V. K. Gupta has mainly contended following points: (i) Firstly, since there was no sale-deed executed by the competent autho rity under the Evacuee Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) no valid title has passed to the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid property as such, the plaintiff was not competent to file the suit in respect of the property in dispute. (ii) Secondly this is admitted on the record of the case that the defen dants were in possession of the land in dispute even prior to the sale certificate having been executed in favour of the plaintiff by a competent authority under the Act and since then the defendants continue to be in possession, the plaintiff has no right to evict the defendants. Under the provisions of the Act, only the authorities under the Act in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act were authorised to evict the defendants. (iii) Thirdly, the plaintiff has no such authority to evict the plaintiff from the property in dispute.;