L.N.MITTAL,J. - (1.) FOR reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 72 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Smt. Veena, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed this second appeal.
(2.) CASE of the plaintiff is that her father Des Raj was owner in possession of the disputed Taur (vacant land) bearing E. P. No. 35. On his death, the plaintiff, being his sole Class-I heir, has inherited the same. Adjoining plot E. P. No. 34, being evacuee property, was allotted to Karam Chand (predecessor of defendants/respondents) and plot E. P. No. 36, adjoining the suit plot on the other side, was allotted to Sant Ram ­ brother of Karam Chand. The plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. Defendants threatened to interfere in his possession thereon and threatened to raise construction. Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so. It was pleaded that plots bearing E. P. Nos. 34 and 36 were evacuee properties, but suit plot E. P. No. 35 was non-evacuee (Hindu) property. Defendants admitted that plot bearing E. P. No. 34 was allotted to their predecessor Karam Chand and plot bearing E. P. No. 36 was allotted to Sant Ram. Defendants alleged that suit plot E. P. No. 35 was also evacuee property and they are in possession thereof. They also applied to Rehabilitation Department for allotment thereof to them, but it was intimated that no allotment of evacuee property has been made after the year 1969 to anyone and if and when the ban imposed by the Government is lifted, the allotment would be made.
(3.) BOTH the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, who has, therefore, filed this second appeal.;