NAUSHE ALI KHAN Vs. MOHAMMAD SIDDIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant respondents 1 and 2 to restore the accommodation in dispute to its original condition within three months of the date of the decree and in the alternative allowing the plaintiff to reconstruct the house at a cost not exceeding Rs. 1000/- was decreed by the primary court. On appeal preferred by the defendant respondents 1 and 2 the Court of first appeal, hereinafter referred to as the court of appeal, set aside the decree and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts found by the two courts below may now be stated. The property in dispute is a house. It was declared as evacuee property and vested in the Custodian who allotted the same to the appellant by his order dated 6-11-1950 on payment of Rupees 8/- p. m. as rent. The house was subsequently auctioned and was purchased by Laiq Ahmad defendant respondent 3. An order granting formal possession to Laid Ahmad was issued by the competent officer on January 5, 1963. However Laiq Ahmad managed to obtain an order of actual delivery of possession from the office of the competent officer. The said order of actual delivery of possession was executed with police help and Laiq Ahmad obtained actual possession of the house. Plaintiff appellant thereupon moved the competent officer who directed that possession of the accommodation may be restored to the plaintiff appellant. Laiq Ahmad filed a suit to restrain the plaintiff appellant from taking possession of the house in dispute. His attempt however proved abortive although he carried the matter to this court. In the meanwhile Laiq Ahmad transferred the house to Madan Lal who in his turn executed a sale deed thereof in favour of defendant respondents 1 and 2. Immediately after purchasing the house in dispute defendant respondents started demolishing the same. Plaintiff filed a suit being suit No. 291 of 1965 to restrain defendant respondents 1 and 2 from demolishing the accommodation in dispute. Plaintiff appellant succeeded in obtaining an order of ad interim injunction but before the said order could be served defendant respondents 1 and 2 had succeeded in demolishing the structure and only the four walls of the house remained. Plaintiff appellant obtained possession over the dilapidated house on November 9, 1967 and thereupon commenced this suit.

(3.) Defendant respondents contested the suit on various grounds and they raised a number of pleas in their written statement. On the pleadings of the parties the primary court framed a number of issues. All material issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff appellant and the suit was decreed as stated above.