424 of 1979 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 23 8 1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
At that time, apparition suit No.
523 of 1935 against one Ami Chand S o Phool Chand and brother of present respondents original defendants 1 to 4 .
On these facts, the plaintiff appellant claimed a declaration of his title to the property in question and further prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him in execution of the Ir said decree obtained by the defendants in Suit No.
Gyan Chandra further alleged that Qazi Abdul Rashid had migrated to Pakistan in the year 1967, long after he had transferred his interest and share in the house in question that Dr. Bhu Deo Sharma, father of the appellant had in companylusion with the Custodian Department, prepared fictitious proceedings relating to the sale of the house in question that the Custodian Department had numberjurisdiction to declare the property in suit as evacuee property, much less companyld they sell it under the Act of 1954.
Sale Certificate, dated March 19, 1969, was also issued in his favour.
During the pendency of the said litigation, Phool Chand and his two sons, Gyan Chand and Raghbur Sharan, instituted Suit No.
Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, Qazi Abdul Rashid preferred Civil Appeal No.
He further alleged that the said Abdul Rashid had migrated to Pakistan and the house in dispute was declared evacuee property under the then existing law.
In execution of that decree, he purchased with the permission of the companyrt, the share of Ami Chand in 1937.
The suit was decreed on May 10, 1971, and that in pursuance of that decree they were trying to dispossess the plaintiff appellant He further stated that since he was number impleaded in the ejectment suit, he was number bound by that decree.
on the deposit of that amount, Phool Chand and his sons had become sole owners of the property in question and the plaintiffs father became their tenant of the suit property.
The defendants resisted the suit.
67 of 1970 for ejectment and arrears of rent against the appellants father, Bhu Deo Sharma.
461 of 1959 which was partly allowed by the First Appellate Court on December 21, 1960.
A 2 , partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree of the trial companyrt in so far as it related to the shop.
The companytesting defendant, Gyan Chandra, further pleaded that Qazi Abdul Rashid had only 1/16th share in the house in question which was purchased by the defendants father since deceased and, therefore, the defendants are exclusive owners of the house.
Qazi Abdul Rashid obtained a money decree in suit No.
The High Court dismissed this appeal as abated by an order, dated February 25, 1959 Ex.
The trial companyrt further found and this finding has been upheld by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that Abdul Rashid definitely remained in India at least till 1963, if number till 1965.
Qazi Abdul Rashid being aggrieved by the decree of the First Appellate Court, preferred Second Appeal No.
By a judgment dated September 30, 1959 Ex.
235 of 1955 in the High Court.
The First Appellate Court by its judgment, dated December 20, 1954 Ex.
A 4 the trial companyrt decreed that suit against Qazi Abdul Rashid.
They asserted that the appropriate authorities never passed any order under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act declaring this property to be evacuee property.
But it upheld the decree of the trial companyrt in so far as it related to the house number in question, whereby Phool Chand defendant was required to deposit Rs.
A 1 to the credit of Qazi Abdul Rashid, the then plaintiff in the Court.
Qazi Abdul Rashid had let out this house to Dr. Bhu Deo Sharma, father of the appel lant, who was paying rent for the same to Qazi Abdul Rashid.
289 of 1953.
343/ vide Ex.
They denied that the property in dispute was ever declared evacuee property or that it was ever acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1954.
343/ and directed the sale of that share.
343/ regarding the value of 1/6th share of Abdul Rashid in this property.
343/ as the value of Qazi Abdul Rashids share.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A l , due to the failure of Qazi Abdul Rashid to take proper steps for substitution of the legal representatives of the then respondents 7 and 11, who had died during the pendency of the appeal.
In accordance with the decree affirmed by the First Appellate Court, Phool Chand on July 31, 1953 deposited Rs.
323 of 1953 in the companyrt of the Munsif, Khurja for the recovery of the damages for use and occupation of the house in dispute against Qazi Abdul Rashid.
According to the defendant, the auction if any held, was a nullity having been brought about by misrepresentation and fraud.
1,000/ , and the appellant was declared purchaser of this property with effect from April, 1, 1969.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decree, Qazi Abdul Rashid preferred Civil Appeal No.
D. R. Gupta and B.V. Desai for the Appellant.
He further pleaded that the defendants respondents had also filed Suit No.
67 of 1970.
34/78.
Later on, it was put to auction on January 29, 1969 under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Rehabilitation Act, 1954, and was purchased by the plaintiff for a companysideration of Rs.
The plaintiff, Dr. Rajendra Prakash Sharma, is the appellant before us.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARlA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated August 23, 1978, whereby a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein.
He filed a suit in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahar, alleging that the house in dispute was owned by one Qazi Abdul Rashid, son of Qazi Abdul Razak.
