R.L. Anand, J. - Unsuccessful plaintiffs Dalip Kaur and others have filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Faridabad, who set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court which decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellants as prayed for.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants alleging the Balkar Singh, the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, had entered into possession of a portion of plot measuring 775 sq. ft. situated in the town of Ballabgarh in the year 1968. The erstwhile Municipal Committee, Ballabgarh used to charge licence fee in the shape of Teh Bazari from Balkar Singh. On 13.1.1972, the Municipal Committee, Faridabad had passed a resolution recommending the transfer of the property to Balkar Singh @ Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. After a series of long correspondence, Collector, Faridabad vide memo dated 28.12.1982 asked Balkar Singh to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,300/- as tentative price of the plot in question @ Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. In pursuance to that the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs deposited the said amount and became owners in possession of the suit property. Balkar Singh died in the year 1984 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and they are in possession of the property after the death of Balkar Singh. On 11.4.1991, the plaintiffs received a notice from the defendants vide which they were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,16,668/- towards the price of the property in dispute. Another notice was received by the plaintiffs on 29.1.1992 from the Tehsildar asking them to pay the said amount by 14.2.1992. The plaintiffs had given challenge to the said notice on various grounds by taking the plea that these notices are illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants mainly on the ground that the Government had approved the price of the land in question @ Rs. 5,000/- per sq. yards vide letter dated 26.2.1991 and the plaintiffs were called upon to deposit the amount if they were interest to occupy the said land. Since the plaintiffs did not deposit the amount, therefore, they have no right to occupy the suit land and they are trespassers.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issue were framed by the trial Court :-

"1. Whether the notice dated 29.1.1992 issued by defendant No. 2 is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint, if so, its effect ? OPP

2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 CPC ? OPD

3. Whether the suit is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

4. Whether no cause of action has arisen to bring the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether the suit in the present from is not maintainable ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from bringing the present suit ? OPD

7. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

8. Relief."

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has invited my attention to the letter Ex. D1, dated 28.12.1982 issued by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Faridabad vide which Balkar Singh was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,300/- in the Government treasury being the price of the plot @ Rs. 50/- per sq. yard being the tentative price of the plot in question for the time being. Further, it was mentioned in the letter that further price would be got deposited by Balkar Singh, if necessary, after the Government decision. Thus the reading of the above letter would show that Balkar Singh was in possession of the plot being a Nazool land much prior to 1982. The notice for enhancing the price of the said land was given to the plaintiffs for the fir