Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff -respondent for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allot free hold residential developed plot measuring 250 sq. yards in the name of plaintiff in pursuance of policy dated 18.3.1992 has been decreed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are .that the plaintiff -respondent was the absolute owner in possession to the extent of 39 marlas of land as detailed in the plaint. The said land was acquired by the appellants in the year 1992 for development of Sector 19 and 20 of Urban Estate, Kaithal. It is further averred mat in pursuance of policy dated 18.3.1992, the plaintiff -respondent applied for the release of free hold residential developed plot as an oustee of the land. However, the appellants failed to take any action for release of the said land. Plaintiff -respondent represented the appellants many times but the appellants failed to take any action and finally refused to release a free hold residential plot to him. Hence this suit. The suit was contested by the appellants stating in the written statement that the plaintiff -respondent never deposited earnest money along with his application which was mandatory as per the brochure issued by HUDA for inviting the application for allotment of residential plots to the oustees. It was further averred that the policy dated 18.3.1992 was partially modified in the year 1993 and the benefit under oustees policy was restricted to one plot according to the size of holding irrespective of the number of co -sharers, which was to be given to successful oustees as per HUDA policy dated 18.3.1992 partially modified on 12.3.1993. With these pleadings, the appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence in support of their case. The trial Court after hearing both the sides and going through the evidence available on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent.;