( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendants. It is against the judgment and decree dated 20 January 1986 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of property bearing No. E-l/3. Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and mesne profits/damages amounting to Rs. 1,800. 00 was decreed with costs.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit on 16 August 1982 in the court of the District Judge. Delhi. He alleged he was owner of two properties hearing No. E-1/3 and E-1/4. Lajpat Nagar. New Delhi, which, he said, he purchased from the Union of India. Perpetual lease deed of the land (Ext. PW 1/l) and conveyance deed of the superstructure (Ext. PW 1/2) were executed on 24 June 1977 and registered before the Sub Registrar, New Delhi. On behalf of the Union of India both these documents were executed by the Managing Officer (Department of Rehabilitation. Settlement Wing), New Delhi, in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff said that his uncle Mela Ram (father s brother) had no place to reside and he. therefore, granted him licence to occupy one of the properties, bearing No. E-1/3, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (for short "the suit property ) at a monthly licence fee of Rs. 30. 00 which later on was increased to Rs. 50. 00 per month as the plaintiff said he built some extra structure in the suit property. With the plaint the plaintiff filed the plan of the suit property. The plaintiff then said that Mela Ram died and he asked the defendants, being the legal heirs of Mela Rani. to vacate the suit property. Instead, these defendants filed a revision petition under section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"), against the order dated 4 June 1977 whereby the lease deed and conveyance deed were executed in favour of the plaintiff. This revision petition was dismissed on 23 September 1980 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Ext. PW2/1 ). A further petition undersection 33 of the same Acy was as filed before the Central Government, hut the same was also dismissed on 31 January 1981 (Exl. PW2/2 ). The defendants thereafter filed a civil writ petition in Delhi High Court (CWP No. 646/81) against the orders of the rehabilitation authorities, hut the same was also dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 28 September 1981 (Ext. PW2/3 ). Plaintiff said that all these proceedings clearly established his ownership in both the properties, i. e. , E-1/3 and E-1/4, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He also said that the orders of the rehabilitation authorities and the judgment of this Court operated as res judicata and the defendants could not challenge the title of the plaintiff to these properties. Since the defendants failed to vacate and also did not pay damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 per month, the plaintiff filed the suit. He claimed damages for past three years. He fixed the market value of the suit property at Rs. 25,000. 00 and thus valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 26,800. 00 and paid the requisite court fee thereon. According to the plaintiff, cause of action arose on 27 February 1980 when vacant possession of the suit property was demanded from the defendants and they refused to surrender possession of the same. Cause of action as regards claim for mesne profits accrued on 31 August 1979 and again as and when these fell due.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit. They raised a preliminary objection that the court of District Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction inasmuch as the market value of the property was about Rs. 3 lakhs and had been wrongly stated by the plaintiff to be Rs. 25. 000. 00. Then they said they had been allotted the suit property by the authorities of the Rehabilitation Department. Government of India, and they had been in possession of the same for the last 32 years or so. They said the suit property formed part of the compensation pool under the Act and since the parties in the suit were to he paid compensation for their verified claims under