Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:- Present appeal, at the instance of plaintiff, is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned first appellate court, whereby first appeal of the defendants was allowed, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration.

2. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate Court, are that the plaintiff filed a suit alongwith his brothers Randhir Singh and Shiv Karan but the names of the other two persons were deleted as they had not come forward to sign plaint and pursue the matter. In any case, one of them was competent to file the suit. It was alleged that the plaintiff and his brothers purchased the suit property from its previous owners Balbir Singh and his sister Jeeto and mutation was duly entered in their names. They remained in possession of the suit property as owners without any obstacle and objection from any quarter. Their names were also entered in the revenue record.

3. However, when the plaintiffs wanted to mortgage the suit property for raising loan from the bank, they were surprised to know on obtaining copy of jamabandi that there was an entry in the remarks column regarding some report No. 501 dated 26.2.1997 and two more reports no.228 of 6.9.2002 and No.1 dated 1.9.2001. The first report was regarding some stay order issued by defendant No.2. The plaintiff made inquiries and it was found that the allotment in favour of the original owner stood cancelled and defendant No.2 was preparing to take steps for sale of the property through auction. The allotment was cancelled by the defendants without the knowledge of the plaintiff and co-owners which they could not have done as the purchasers were the affected parties. Since the defendants failed to accede to the request of the plaintiffs not to implement that order, the present suit was filed. The plaintiff wanted that he and his brothers should be declared to be the owners in possession of the suit property.

4. The defendants filed a joint written statement alleging that initially, the suit property was allotted to Mangal Singh (stated by the plaintiff to be his predecessor) vide order dated 6.12.1994. However, the said allotment was cancelled by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh, vide orders dated 27.5.2002. Accordingly, an entry regarding the same was made in the revenue record vide report No.22 of 6.9.2002. After passing of the said order, Central Government became owner of the property and proceedings regarding obtaining possession were being taken. It was pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and suit was also not maintainable.

5. It was denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property after verifying the title of his vendor. It was also denied that it was necessary for the defendants to have heard the plaintiff before cancelling the allotment.

6. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of the registered sale deed No. 1356 dated 8.7.1996 and mutation no. 429? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to try this case in view of section 34 & 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

6. Relief.

7. To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaint