VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) For the reasons given in the application, the order dated March 9, 2006 is recalled. The main appeal is restored back to its original number. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the arguments in the main appeal have been heard.
(2.) This order shall dispose of two appeal being R.S.A. No. 3298 of 2002 and R.S.A. No. 3299 of 2002 as both the appeals have been filed by the same appellant- Sadhu Ram and the defendants are also the same. The subject matter of the two suits is also the same property.
(3.) A suit was filed by Sadhu Ram for possession of the suit property. It was claimed by him that he was owner in possession of the suit property and that the father of the defendants Bakhtawar Singh taking advantage of his influential position in the village had got the revenue entries changed in his name. Thereafter in the year 1999, the possession of the suit property was taken forcibly by the defendants. Consequently, Sadhu Ram claimed that he was entitled to the possession of the suit property after removal of the gohara and malba. He also claimed that he was entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30/- per month. Another suit was filed by Sawan Ram and others for declaration. They sought a declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property.;