Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) BY way of this order, two appeals, that require answers to the same questions of law shall be decided.
(2.) THE appellants challenge judgments and decrees dated 16.04.1986 and 19.10.1987, passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar and the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, respectively.
(3.) RAJINDER Lal, the appellant, in RSA No. 846 of 1988, filed a suit for separate possession, by partition of house No. 1079/XI, situated in Kucha Acharaja, Amritsar, arraying his sister Smt. Prem Mohni (respondent No. 1 in RSA No. 846 of 1988 and the appellant in RSA No. 1883 of 1988), Prem Parkash, Gian Chand, Daya Ram his brothers as defendants (respondents No. 2 to 4 in both appeals) and Ramesh Kumar, M/s. Kapur Textiles and M/s. Dena Bank, tenants in possession of separate parts of the premises. Rajinder Lal, the appellant, relied upon a sale certificate dated 27.05.1975, issued by the Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, in his and in favour of Smt. Prem Mohni to the exclusion of respondents No. 2 to 4. The appellant also prayed that Prem Mohni, respondent No. 1 should be directed to render accounts. After notice, the tenants were proceeded against ex -parte but the other respondents namely Prem Mohni, and respondents No. 2 to 4, filed a written statement, raising preliminary objections, regarding valuation of the suit and non -joinder of necessary parties. The respondents also raised a plea that the appellant was not in possession of any part of the property and pleaded that the property belonged to their father Ram Narain, who was a displaced person. Ram Narain was allowed to purchase the property in dispute by the Managing Officer on 31.01.1963, for Rs. 8412/ -, payable in six instalments. Ram Narain paid five instalments, during his lifetime but the sixth instalment was paid by Gian Chand (respondent No. 3), on 05.12.1968, after the death of Ram Narain. The respondents also pleaded that Will, dated 31.10.1967, set up by the appellant is illegal and, therefore, the Managing Officer could not transfer the property in favour of the appellant and Prem Mohni, on the basis of the Will. The Will is in fact a letter addressed to the Managing Officer and, therefore, cannot be treated as a Will. The respondents denied that affidavits had been filed by Prem Parkash, Daya Ram and Smt. Sarla Rani accepting the Will and also pleaded that statements made before the Managing Officer have no value. The plaintiff filed a replication denying averments in the written statement but reiterating averments in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: - - "1. Whether the suit is properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit? OPP. 3. Whether the property in suit belonged to Ram Narain deceased? OPD. 4. Whether plaintiff is the sole owner of the property in dispute? OPP. 5. Whether the sale certificate in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was issued by the Rehabilitation Department in collusion with the plaintiff as given in paras No. 3 and 4 and 5 of the preliminary objection of the W. S.? OPD. 6. Whether the decision, dated 7.9.80 of the D.R.M.O. was a valid document? OPD. 7. Whether Harkishan Lal and Sarla Kumari are necessary parties? OPD. 8. Whether the suit against Gian Chand, Prem Parkash and Daya Kishan is not competent? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is within time? OPP. 10. Whether the suit is bad for mis -joinder of parties and cause of action? OPD. 11. Whether Ram Parkash, Daya Ram, Smt. Prem Mohni are estopped by their acts and conduct from making objection to the Will of Sh. Ram Narain and the title of the plaintiff and Prem Mohni and from claiming any interest in the property? OPD. 12. Whether the order dated 7.9.80 of the Managing Officer is liable to be challenged and questioned in the present proceedings? OPD. 13. Whether the grant of conveyance deed by D.M.R.O. In favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 can not be challenged in civil court? OPP. 14. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to partition of 1/2 share in the property? OPD. 15. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to account for income and profits as prayed from the defendant No. 1? 16. Relief." ;