The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the plaintiff's title over the disputed plot and the defendants' failure to prove their title, leading to the plaintiff's entitlement to possession.

Dalip Singh, J.- This is plaintiff s first appeal arising out of a suit preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondents for possession before the trial Court in respect of possession of a piece of land described as plot No. 130 in Badodiya Basti, Jaipur

2. In nutshell the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he was in possession of a piece of land in said basti and subsequently this land was acquired by the then Urban Improvement Trust. The survey was carried out of the persons who were residing in the said basti in development process by the Urban Improvement Trust and thereafter allotment letters were issued to the occupants of the said basti and the plaintiff-appellant was for the first instance allotted plot No. 128 in the said basti which allotment was subsequently altered by correcting the number of the plot as plot No. 130. It is this plot No. 130 for the possession of which, the suit from which the present appeal arises has been filed.

3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant further was that this plot has been occupied and taken possession of by the defendants and the defendants have no right, title or interest on the same as such they are trespassers and the plaintiff-appellant had prior to the filing of this suit when the Urban Improvement Trust wrongly canceled his allotment of plot No. 130 filed a suit against the UIT which was decree and the cancellation of the allotment of plot No. 130 was set aside. The UIT challenged the decree to the earlier suit but the same was maintained upto the High Court in second appeal and the cancellation of the allotment of plaintiff-appellant of plot No. 130 by the UIT was set aside. Thus, the plaintiff based his suit on title of plot No. 130.

4. In reply to the aforesaid, the defendant-respondents filed written statement therein that the plaintiff was never in possession of plot No. 130 and that the defendants had always been in possession of the said plot. The defendants denied the fact that the plot No. 130 had been allotted by the UIT to the plaintiff-appellant and further denied having any knowledge about the previous litigation or the decree having passed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. It was further submitted that assuming that the said decree had been passed, the same is not binding upon the defendants.

5. Based upon the aforesaid pleading, learned trial Court framed as many as nine issues. Issue No. 1 was in respect of the fact as to whether plot No. 130 is owned by the plaintiff . The learned trial Court after having gone through the evidence came to the conclusion that plaintiff had failed to prove his title over the plot No. 130 and consequently, the learned trial Court decided issue No 1 against the plaintiff .

6. The learned trial Court also held that plaintiff had failed to prove that defendants had forcibly occupied and taken possession of plot in dispute on 112.1986. Based upon the findings of these two main issues, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant and it is on account of the aforesaid that the plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court.

7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that learned trial Court has committed a serious error in deciding issue No. 1 against the plaintiff . His submission is that on the record the plaintiff had produced the documents in the form of Exhibit-23, the allotment order dated 17.01.1977 by which plot No. 128 was allotted by the UIT to the plaintiff . He has then drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that in respect of the aforesaid allotment charges which were required to be deposited by the plaintiff were deposited vide Exhibit-24 receipt dated 19.01.1977. Subsequently, thereafter on 25.03.1977 the UIT vide Exhibit-25 letter informing the plaintiff that in place of plot No. 128, plot No. 130 has been allotted to him and consequently in the allotment letter dated 17.01.1977 Exhibit-23 in place of plot No. 128 “pl