- (1.) The present Regular Second Appeal No. 2875 of 2012 as well as Civil Revision No. 5804 of 2013 are being decided together as both matters pertain to the same suit property and were ordered to be heard together, vide order dated 07.07.2014.
(2.) The appellant-plaintiff has come in RSA against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohtak, whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, dated 07.10.2009, was dismissed. The civil revision has been filed by him against the order of the same Court, dated 13.03.2013, dismissing the application filed under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of a delay of 1030 days in filing the appeal against another decree passed consequent upon the same judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge.
(3.) The facts of the case, as taken from the judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge, are that the plaintiff, Dharam Pal, filed a suit for possession of the suit property, bearing No.BIV-78, Meham. It was stated in the plaint that the said property had been purchased by Chaman Lal son of Ganga Ram vide a certificate of sale issued by the Managing Officer (Sales) of the Department of Rehabilitation, (then Punjab), dated 30.04.1965, "Benami", inasmuch as, actually it was purchased by Chaman Lal in the name of his brother, Nand Lal, with the total sale price being Rs.6219/-, of which Rs.4924/- were towards the adjustment of the claim (of property left behind in Pakistan) and the remaining Rs.1276/- was paid towards such total consideration. It was further averred in the plaint that thereafter house tax was paid regularly and Nand Lal had treated Chaman Lal as the owner of the property, even as per a family settlement. It was also contended that Chaman Lal had sold the property to the appellant-plaintiff vide a sale deed dated 14.03.1995 and since then the plaintiff was the owner thereof, but the defendant, Subhash son of Ved Parkash, had taken illegal possession of the same about two years prior to the filing of the suit (on 10.09.1997). Consequently, upon Subhash refusing to vacate the property, the suit was filed, initially impleading only the aforesaid Subhash as the defendant.;