SABINA, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF-Moti Ram had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner of plot No. 254P, Sector 12-A, Panchkula and the order of RSA No.5111 of 2003 2 allotment passed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant No.4 vide Office memo dated 8.10.1987 was illegal, null and void. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plot in question was allotted to him on 30.5.1983 by defendant No.3. PLAINTIFF had paid some of the instalments. A notice was received by the plaintiff in the month of March, 1988 for payment of ` 6171.95. PLAINTIFF sent his reply dated 20.4.1988 seeking extension of time to enable him to make arrangement for the payment of instalment. PLAINTIFF received another notice dated 9.5.1988 from the defendants that the plot in question had been transferred in the name of defendant No.4. On inquiry plaintiff came to know that defendant No.5 was a close relative of defendant No.4 . Defendant No.5 had close relations with the plaintiff and by taking undue advantage of the closeness with the plaintiff, he had misused and forged the signatures of the plaintiffs while moving an application for transfer of the plot in favour of defendant No.4. At the instance of the plaintiff, a representation was moved by the plaintiff to defendant No.2. After an inquiry, FIR No.40 dated 22.2.1989 was got registered against defendant No. 4 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 to 3 in their written statement averred that the plot in question had been allotted to the plaintiff and had been transferred in the name of defendant No.4 on a request made by the plaintiff on 8.10.1987.
(2.) DEFENDANT No.4 in his written statement averred that the plaintiff had himself moved the application for transfer of the plot in favour of the answering defendant. The other contentions in the RSA No.5111 of 2003 3 plaint qua forgery etc. were denied. DEFENDANT No.5 in his written statement averred that the plaintiffs had never engaged the answering defendant as his counsel. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1.Whether impugned order dated 8.10.87 passed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 for reallotment of plot No. 254P, Sector 12-A, Panchkula is illegal, null and void being the result of fraud committed by defendant No. 4 and 5 in connivance with the officials of defendant No. 3?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner of plot in question?OPD 3.Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed for?OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5.Whether suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC?OPD 6.Wheher jurisdiction of civil court is barred to entertain and try the present suit under section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1977 Act?OPD 7.Relief."
(3.) THE trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2003 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2003. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the Courts below had erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No.5 was a counsel for the plaintiff. Taking undue advantage of his relationship, defendant No.5 got the plot allotted to the plaintiff transferred in favour of defendant No.4. Defendants No.4 and 5 were closely related to each other. THEre was no occasion for the plaintiff to give his address on application Exhibit P2 of defendant No.5. Plaintiff was resident of Chandigarh and could have easily given his own address on the alleged application for transfer of plot. Defendant No.5 had denied that he had represented the plaintiff as his counsel. On coming to know about the fraud committed by defendants No. 4 and 5, defendant No.2 had lodged an FIR against the private defendants. As per the expert, signatures of the plaintiff did not tally on the application submitted by him for transfer of the plot in favour of defendant No.4. Defendant No.4 had failed to take any plea in the written statement qua payment made by him at the time of purchase of the plot in question. Learned counsel for defendants No. 4 and 5 has submitted that defendant No.5 had represented the plaintiff in a case upto the year 1981. THE plot in question was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1983. An application for permission to transfer the plot in favour of defendant No.4 was made in the year 1987. In these circumstances, the story put forth by the plaintiff that defendant No.5 had misused his position stood belied. THE original letter of allotment had been produced on record by the defendants which showed that RSA No.5111 of 2003 5 the same had been handed over to the defendants by the plaintiff himself. THE suit for declaration simpliciter without seeking possession was not maintainable. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.;