- (1.) This appeal has been filed by defendants 4 to 6 against the judgment and decree of the District Judge. Karnal, dt. l8th January, 1974.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff migrated from Pakistan to India at the time of partition of the country. He owned land in West Pakistan and in lieu thereof he was allotted 9 Standard Acres 13 Units of land in village Rohti, District Kurukshetra, by the Rehabilitation Authorities. Later it was discovered that part of the land in Pakistan stood mortgaged with the Muslims, Consequently, the notice dt. l9th July. 1960, was issued by the Managing officer to the plaintiff to appear before him on 1lth Aug. 1950, and inform him whether the plaintiff wanted to pay the mortg-age-.money or get. his allotment cancelled. The plaintiff did not appear before the Managing Officer. Consequently, in lieu of the mortgaged land measuring 5 Standard Acres 1 Unit, the allotment of she plaintiff to the extent of 3 Standard Acres 121/2 units was cancelled vide order dated 13th Aug. 1960. Later. on 7th Feb. 1964. the retrieved area was sold by public auction and it was purchased by Qandhara Singh and Malik Singh defendants Nos. 4 and 3. respectively, for Rs. 5,6001-. Malik Singh defendant further sold his share to defendants Nos. 4. 5 and 6. The plaintiff has averred that the order of the Managing Officer cancelling his allotment was illegal. void and without jurisdiction. Consequently, he filed a suit for possession of the said land.
(3.) The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1. 2 and 4 to 6 who controverted the allegations, of the plaintiff. They inter alia-pleaded that the order dated 13th Aug. 1960, was valid and legal. that defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were bona fide transferees for. valuable consideration and protected under Section 41 of the T. P. Act and that the plaintiff is also estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct. The trial Court framed the following issues._ 1. Whether the cancellation of allotment of agricultural land in favour of the plaintiff (now respondent No. 3) by the Rehabilitation authorities is contrary to law? 2. Whether defendant Nos. 3 to 6,(now respondent No. 4 and the appellants)are bona fide transferees for valuable consideration and are protected under See. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act? 3. Whether the notice under See. 80, C.P.C.. served on defendants Nos. 1 and 2) (now respondents Nos. 1 and 2) is illegal? 3-A Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct as alleged in para 4 of the preliminary objection in the written statement filed by defendant No. 4?;