V.P. Tyagi, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal filed by the Masjid Committee, Ajmer is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1957 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer in an appeal filed against the decree passed by the Munsif Ajmer in original suit No. 243 of 1961.
(2.) THE plaintiff appellant brought this suit against one Jhamatmal and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 who were the mortgagees or the suit property which has been marked in the Municipal register as property No. 8/99 in Chisti Bazar, Ajmer. According to the plaintiff's case, this property was declared evacuee property by the Custodian and that thereafter, it was handed over to the Masjid Committee, Ajmer, and since then the property being owned by the Masjid Committee. Jhamatmal, according to the plaintiff, was the tenant and therefore a suit for eviction was brought against Jhamatmal but as Jhamatmal claimed that he was the tenant of respondent Nos. 2 to 9 who were the mortgagees of this property, the eight respondents Nos. 2 to 9 were also impleaded in the suit. It was further averred that since Jhamatmal was never recognized as a tenant by the Custodian, his occupation of the property which was formerly cumbered as AMC V/40 and now VIII/99, was illegal. Jhamatmal filed a separate written statement and pleaded that he was in occupation of the property as a tenant of Anantmal from the year 1953. Respondent No. 2 filing a separate written statement came out with a case that Amir Ahmed and Ahmed Khan. were the proprietors of this propriety and that they had mortgaged this property with possession in favour of Anantmal and Rampal by means of a registered mortgage deed dated 9 -10 -1924 and since then they were in possession of this property and it was rented out to Jhamatmal. According to these defendant -respondents, they were realising the rent of this property as mortgagees from the tenants including Jhamatmal. It was also vehemently contended that this property was never declared as an evacuee property by the Custodian in accordance with the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee properties Act, 1950.
(3.) VARIOUS issues were framed by the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties but the main issue which clinches the crux of the dispute between the parties was issue No. 5. - Whether the custodian of Evacuees Property gave posses ion of the suit property to the plaintiff. If so, what is its effect ? Issue No. 3 also is a relevant issue which relates to the question whether the suit property was ever declared as an evacuee property, Both these issue were decided by the trial court in favour if the defendant respondents. On appeal, the finding of the trial court was upheld on these issues and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed It is against this judgment of the appellant court that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff appellant.;