POONAM CHAND Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Churu, dated 24 5 -80 decreeing plaintiff's suit for a declaration of the sale deed dated 21 -3 -78 as void, for possession of the property in dispute and mesne profits. The plaintiff has also filed a cross -objection so far as the mesne profits are concerned.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the property in dispute described in para no. 1 of the plaint was alleged to be an evacue property bearing no. 45. The plaintiff had been in possession thereof from May, 1956 to 1 ' -8 -62 as a tenant @ Rs. 1.50 p.m. Thereafter this property was sold to the plaintiff by the Competent Officer on 13 -8 -62 by a registered sale deed. The case of the plaintiff further was that one of his relations Shri Padam Chand had been permitted by him to stay in this property as his licensee. The defendant Poonam Chand also was their relation and he also started living in this property with the permission of the plaintiff from 1967. Later the plaintiff's daughter was married to the eldest son of defendant no. 1 and the defendants continued to stay in the house in dispute with the permission of the plaintiff. However, defendant no. 1 Poonam Chand executed a sale deed in respect of half the property in favour of his younger son Umesh Chand defendant no. 2 and got it registered on 21 -2 -78. According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 Poonam Chand has no title to this property and, therefore, he could not have sold any party of it to defendant no. 2 and, therefore, the sale deed executed by Poonam Chand was void and ineffective so far as the plaintiff was concerned. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted a declaration to the above effect and also claimed possession of the property as also mesne profits @ Rs. 80/ - p.m. The defendants contested the suit. Their case was that this property was lying vacant and they had been living in this property since before 1955. They did not, however, deny that it was evacuee property so far as the sale in favour of the plaintiff was concerned, the only reply given by the defendant in para no. 3 was that the property was never auctioned as alleged by the plaintiff and if the plaintiff had obtained a sale deed surrpitiously, he cannot claim any title to it. They pleaded ignorance about the alleged sale deed. The claim for mesne profits was also contested. On these pleadings, the court below framed the following seven issues: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... After taking the evidence of both the parties, the trial court decreed the plantiff's suit to the effect that the plantiff was declared to be the owner of the property in dispute, that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 was void and ineffective so far as the plaintiff was concerned and the sale deed was cancelled. Mesne profits were awarded @ Rs. 45/ - p.m. It is against this decree that the present appeal and the cross -objections have been filed as already stated above.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has raised four contentions before me. His first contention is that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is without jurisdiction because the Competent Officer could not have sold this property to the plaintiff unless it was established that it was composite property. His second contention is that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession within twelve years of the filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit could not have been decreed. His third contention is that the mesne profits have been awarded at an excessive rate. His fourth contention is that the defendants' evidence had wrongly been closed.