Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides for the rights of a transferee who makes improvements on the property under a bona fide belief of absolute entitlement, and the court may require the person causing eviction to pay for the improvements or sell the property to the transferee at the market value.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos,1273 and 1159 of 1984 as these arise out of a common, judgment dated 23.9,1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.

2. The plaintiff-Dogar Ram filed a suit for possession of 1 /3rd share of taur against defendants-Amar Singh, Pritam Singh, Surinder Singh, Kashmiri Lai and Yashpal. The facts leading to the filing of the suit are that on 9.7.1920, one Babu Ram son of Chint Ram mortgaged with possession his l/3rd share of taur in dispute with one Daya Ram. On 7 11 1942 Daya Ram mortagagee furhter with possession the said l/3rd share in the taur in dispute withe the plaintiff . The said property in dispute was never got redeemed by Babu Ram or Daya Ram within the prescribed period by law. The plaintiff claimed that he had become full owner 1/3rd share of the taur in dispute by hare of the taur in dispute by the year 1972 by offux of time . The plaintiff had by then acquired the other 2/3rd share in the taur in dispute also and had becomme owner therfore .The planitiff claimed that in the year 1971 he had tp go Calcutta and on his return he he found that defendants 1 to 3 had constructed a house on a part of the the taur in disputed. The plaintiff asked defendants 1 to 3 to deliver him the possesssion and to remove thier malba. The said defendants alleged that had purched 1/3rd share in the taur in dispute from defendants 4 and 5 and thus they refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff and deliver back the possession.

3. The written statement was filed by defendants 2 and 3 only who took a preliminary objection that suit for possession was not maintainable. On merits, the averments contained in the pliant were denied. It was pleaded that if there was any mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff, the same was a forged document, It was further stated that they raised construction of a very palatial building by spending huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- and at that time, the plaintiff did not raise any objection nor did he assert his ownership over the said property. Lastly, it was pleaded that they along with defendant No. 1 pirchased l/3rd share of the plot in dispute from defendant no,4 vide registered sale dec d dated 9.6.1971 for consideration and thus, they were bona fide purchasers.

4. The rival claims raised by the parties, gave rise to the following issues:-

1. Whether Babu Ram mortgaged with possession l/3rd share in the taur shown in red colour in site plan attached by the plaintiff as alleged in para No. 1 to the plaint? OPP

2. Whether Daya Ram mortgagee of the above property further mortgaged with possession the same with the plaintiff on 7.11.1942? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the said property by efflux of time? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property? OPP

5. Whether the suit for possession of the property is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD (onus objected to)

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, if so, its effect? OPD

8. Whether the suit is properly valued for the Court fee and jurisdiction?

9. Whether the plaintiff is barred by his act and conduct to file this suit? OPD

10. Whether defendant Nos. l to 3 purchased a plot from Kashmiri Lal on 9.6.1971, if so, its effect? OPD

11. Whether defendant Nos.l to 3 raised construction bonafide on the plot purchased by them if so to what value? OPD

12. If issue No. 10 is proved, whether the defendant Nos.l to 3 are entitled to recover any amount for the construction? OPD

13. Relief.

5. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the respective parties, answered issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, holding that Babu Ram mortgaged with possession l/3rd share in the taur in dispute with deceased Daya Ram. Under issue No. 2, it was held that Daya Ram mortg