PIARA SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation on behalf of the respondent when the case was called.

(2.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration the second appeal:-

(3.) The plaintiff, who secured a decree for recovery of possession, suffered a reversal of the judgment at the appellate court. The defendant was the plaintiff, who had earlier filed a suit for injunction with respect to the same very property. The contest by the plaintiff in the earlier suit was that the property had vested with the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and later conveyed to the plaintiff under the 1954 Act. The conveyance had been in recognition of the plaintiff's claim through his father under a Will. The defendant had set up a rival Will but the authority under the 1954 Act, after an inquiry, found the plaintiff to be entitled to be favoured with a conveyance deed. The order directing the conveyance be made on 9.6.1978 had been a subject of challenge by the defendant but he failed in his attempt and the conveyance deed was executed in his favour on 8.5.1979. The challenge to the order of sale in favour of the plaintiff initiated at the instance of the defendant failed and the defendant filed a suit for injunction claiming on the basis of his possession that he was entitled to protection against the present plaintiff. The trial court in the suit for injunction had to deal with the respective rights claimed by the parties and the court held that the defendant was not entitled to the relief of injunction and dismissed his suit. In appeal filed under Ex. PD, the appellate court affirmed the entitlement, as claimed by the plaintiff through the conveyance made in his favour, but in its judgment dated 21.4.1982 provided the defendant with the decree for injunction till dispossession was in accordance with law. It was this judgment that was the basis of the plaintiff to file the present suit for recovery of possession.