- (1.) The defendants-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) Hans Raj, plaintiff filed a suit for a decree for possession of property No. B-VIII-18 measuring 329 sq. yards situated at Meham being fully detailed in the site plan attached with the plaint. It was pleaded that property No. B-VIII-18 measuring 329 sq. yards was put to auction on 5.6.1979 and the plaintiff being the highest bidder of Rs. 1250/-, the bid was confirmed in his favour on 28.6.1979. As provided under the Displaced Persons Compensation Rules a conveyance deed was also issued to the plaintiff on 1.6.1982 and the same was registered on 8.9.1982. It was further pleaded that the property purchased by the plaintiff consisted of a room on the Northern side as also a room on the Southern side. The defendants forcefully and illegally entered the property and demolished the room on the Southern side which was adjacent to a Gali. It was stated that such portion now stood occupied by Sadhu Ram, defendant No. 2 and such defendant had also constructed a room with the malba of the demolished room and kitchen as reflected in the red colour in the site plan. Defendant No. 4 was stated to be in possession of a room and kitchen and defendant No. 3 was stated to be in possession of the original existing room on the Northern side of the property. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had on a number of occasions objected to the illegal occupation of his property at the hands of the defendants. However, since the defendants had failed to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as such the decree for possession had been prayed for.
(3.) The defendants upon notice contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendants No. 1 and 2 denied that the suit property had even been auctioned by the Custodian Department. It was pleaded that the property No. B-VIII-19 had been put to auction by the Custodian Department in the year 1958 and the same had been purchased by Matu Ram i.e. the father of defendants No. 1 and 2 in an open auction. A sale certificate had also been issued in respect thereof. Defendants No. 3 and 4 also denied the averments made in the plaint and claimed that they are in possession of the suit property as owners. Defendants No. 3 and 4 asserted that they had raised construction over the property more than 25 years back and upon such pleadings it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.;