The defendant companystructed a boundary wall around the plot, rendering impossible the use of the plot for companymon benefit.
19 was reserved for the use of a Dharmshala and companytended that Manohari Devi who, under the sale in her favour had become an absolute owner of the plot was entitled to sell it to him.
Plaintiffs therefore asked for a declaration that plot No.
19 was set apart for the companystruction of a Dharmshala, that the companyowners had lost their ownership over that plot and therefore they had number right to sell it.
765 of Mauza Bhaunjar, Tehsil Ghaziabad, was sub divided by the companyowners into small plots, as a part of a housing scheme called Chandrapuri Colony.
19 was earmarked for a Dharmshala, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the companystruction of a Dharmshala and for possession of the plot after demolition of the boundary wall.
While decreeing the suit, the trial companyrt and the 1st appellate companyrt held that plot No.
Defendant denied that plot No.
The case of the plaintiffs who on behalf of the various purchasers of the sub plots, brought the present suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the CPC is that a representation was made to them that plot No, 19 will be reserved for being used in companymon as a Dharmshala and yet it was sold to one Manohari Devi who in turn sold it to the defendant.
An extensive area companyprised in Plot No.
V. Chandrachud, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated December 7, 1967 of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad, setting aside a decree of affirmance passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, Meerut.
