JUDGMENT

B.C.JAUHARI, J.

(2) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Sri B.N. Srivastava, Second Additional District. Judge, Allahabad, dated 4/08/1978, and arises out of an interpleader suit filed by the Allahabad Polytechnic, Allahabad, impleading the appellant and the Union of India, on the allegation that the appellant had let out the property, premises No. 29, Chaitham Lines, Allahabad Cantonment bearing Survey No. 143, to Allahabad Polytechnic and rent had been paid upto 30/06/1970, The Polytechnic was informed by the Union of India that they had resumed the grant relating to the property and henceforth rent should be paid to the Union of India, failing which the tenancy would be terminated. In view of the uncertainty as to whom the rent should be paid to the interpleader suit was filed.

(3) THE case of the Union of India was that the property in question was held by the predecessor of the appellant Sri Manmohan Dass Tandon under old grant terms under G.G. 0. No. 179 of September 12, 1836 and under condition No. 6(1) of the said G.G.0. the site of the building was resumed by the Union of India) by serving a resumption notice dated 26/12/1969 and the compensation of the material of the house standing over the site was adjudged at Rs. 3,500.00 which was to be paid to the appellant. The case of the appellant was that he was the full owner and landlord of the property in suit and that the Union of India had no right whatsoever in the suit property. A writ petition was filed by the appellant being Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 165 of 1979 and the order of resumption was challenged. On the undertaking given by the Union of India that the appellant will not be evicted by force and without recourse to law, the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant traced his title on the basis of a court auction in execution of a decree in the year 1848 and asserted that since then he has been in possession without payment of any rent whatsoever to the Union of India, and has perfected his title by adverse possession. A case in the alternative was also set up that there was no valid resumption of the lease. The Additional Civil Judge before whom the suit was filed decreed the suit in favour of the appellant and held him entitled to get the rent from the Allahabad Polytechnic. The Second Additional District Judge, however, allowed the appeal and reversed the decree of the learned Civil Judge and held that the Union of India, and not the appellant, was entitled to get the rent from the Allahabad Polytechnic.

(4) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court must be set aside and that of the trial court restored. The controversy in the suit mainly turns round the determination of the question whether the property in suit belonged to the Cantonment as alleged by the Union of India or it was the private property of the predecessors of the appellant having being acquired at an auction sale. In the instant case the Sale Certificate dated April 12, 1849 has been filed which shows that in execution of a decree held by Lala Manohar Lal against George Spencer, the property was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,900.00 and was purchased by the decree-holder Lala Manohar Lal. It is admitted that after the purchase Lala Manohar Lal entered into possession and his possession continued till his death and that of his successors continues up to date. The auction sale undoubtedly conveyed the right, title and interest which the judgment-debtors Mr Scot and George Spencer had on the date of the sale. It was consequently the bounden duty of the Union of India to establish that the judgment-debtors George Spencer and Mr Scot held the bungalow and the appurtenant land subject to the condition mentioned in G.G.O. No. 179 dated September 12, 1836. No old grant in favour of the judgment-deb