(1.) The appellant-Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of suit property, being a three-storeyed house and decree dated 29.10.1992, obtained by the predecessor of the defendants against Sampat Ram, was void as Plaintiff-appellants were never party in those proceedings and Sampat Ram had never remained in possession of the house nor Gopi Lal, predecessor of the defendants was owner of the property. It was further stated that the Plaintiffs filed objections to the decree, which were dismissed on 29.4.1975 and Gopi Lal, decree-holder was ordered to take possession by 24.5.1975.
(2.) The defendant-respondents contested the suit, denying the title of the Plaintiffs and stated that Plaintiff Jagdish Parshad and his father Budh Ram had admitted Gopi Lal as the owner. It was further stated that Sampat Ram was tenant under the defendants and he had been ordered to be evicted and Plaintiffs illegally obstructed delivery of possession to the Plaintiffs. It was also stated that one of the Plaintiffs Phul Chand was a Municipal Commissioner and under his influence, entries in house tax record were made in favour of Plaintiffs, which were illegal and ineffective. Sampat Ram, defendant filed his written statement supporting the Plaintiffs.
(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit. It was held that confusion had been created with regard to the identity of the suit property. The suit property was in two parts as was clear from the map Ex. P-13. Gopi Lal defendant had filed eviction application in respect of red portion in the map while area in possession of father of the Plaintiffs were outside the red portion. The house tax receipts Exs. P-4 to P-8 relied upon by the Plaintiffs related to the property bearing No. B.8/375. It was not the case of the Plaintiffs that the suit property was to be taken as referring to area outside red portion. This fact was further supported by the fact that the Plaintiffs admitted that Gopi Lal was owner of same portion. Such admission was also contained in documents produced by the defendants. Ex. DW2/1 was application moved by the Plaintiff's father Budh Ram which has been proved by Musadi Lal DW-2. Similarly, Jagdish Parshad in Ex. D5 appearing as RW5 on 15.2.1965 in earlier proceedings admitted that on the east of their property, property of Gopi Lal existed. He also admitted his signatures on application Ex. D4. In Ex.D-4, he stated a joint "Sehan" belonged to him and Gopi Lal and the building being in dilapidated condition, should be demolished. Gopi Lal deposited expenses for demolition of building, receipts of which were Exs. DW6/1 to DW6/4. Rent note dated 1.4.2005 B.K. (1948 A.D.), Ex. DW4/1 was executed by Prabhu Dayal in favour of Gopi Lal, whereby he had taken the building on rent at the rate of Rs. 21- per month. Prabhu Dayal appeared his signatures on the rent deed dated Ex. DW-4/1 Ex. DW-4/2 was rent note dated 6.5.1958 executed by Sampat Ram which was proved by DW-4 Ramji Lal, Sampat Ram who filed a written statement in support of the Plaintiffs, did not appear as a witness to controvert this.