JUDGMENT

THOMMEN, J.:—This appeal arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 7-11--1974 in Regular First.Appeals Nos. 156-D and 167-D of 1963. The appellant, Sohan Lal, is the second defendant in the. civil suit instituted in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi by the second respondent herein, Jagan Nath Bhayana. The first respondent in this appeal, the Union of India, is the first defendant in the suit.

2. The main relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit was for possession of House No. 35, Block No. 21, Box-type tenement in West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, or in the alternative for specific performance of sale of the aforesaid house, or for damages in the sum of Rs. 13,000/ - together with costs. The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge against the second defendant, Sohan Lal, the appellant herein. But it was decreed against the first defendant - the Union of India - the first respondent herein, to the extent of awarding damages in the sum of Rs. 13,069.31 with proportionate costs. That was the only relief which was granted by the learned Sub-Judge. Both the Union of India and Jagan Nath Bhayana filed Regular First Appeals Nos. 156-D and, 167-D of 1963 respectively in the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the Regular First Appeal No. 156-D of 1963 preferred by the Union of India, but allowed the Regular First Appeal No. 167-D of 1963, filed by the plaintiff. The High Court observed:

"As a result the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale succeeds against the first and the second defendant..... Accordingly we decree the suit of the plaintiff against the first defendant for specific performance of the contract of sale of the house in dispute to the plaintiff and we direct the second defendant to join in the sale and convey to the plaintiff his right, title and interest in the property in dispute including the superstructures erected thereon. The conveyance would be executed on the request and at the expense of the plaintiff. The defendants are further directed to do all further incidental and consequential acts that may be necessary to perfect the title of the plaintiff to the property in dispute......."

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into a contract with the Union of India in terms of which the Union of India had undertaken to allot to him the house in question and execute the necessary documents of title in his favour. Although the Union of India made an order allotting the house and the plaintiff was put in possession of it, the allotment was subsequently cancelled and the plaintiff was dispossessed of the house. In his place, the appellant-Sohan Lal the second defendant, was put into possession of the house by allotting the same to him and executing the necessary documents of title in his favour.

4. No document has been produced by the plaintiff to show that the house was ever allotted to him by the Government. According to the Union of India, the plaintiff was not eligible for allotment. Since he was in unlawful occupation of the premises he was evicted. After making allotment of the house in favour of Sohan Lal - - the appellant-defendant No. 2 on 31-7-52, the possession of the house was handed over to him and subsequently the deed of conveyance was also executee in nis favour on 11-7-1958. The appellant th is became the full owner in possession of the property. The deed of conveyance of the building in favour of the appellant reads:

"....... This Indenture made the Eleventh day of July, 1958, between the President of India (hereinafter called the Vendor of the one part and Shri Sohan Lal son of Lala Jai Daval, 21/35, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, (hereinafter called Purchaser) of the other part......

Signed by the Settlement

Commissioner Government

Built Properties, for and

on behalf of the President

of India,this11-7-58."

5. As stated earlier, no document has been produced to show that any order of allotment had been issued