The judgment in previous litigation and the presumption of truth in revenue records influenced the court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

GURMIT RAM, J.

This appeal is preferred by abovesaid appellants-herein (defendants) for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and further to dismiss the suit filed by respondent-herein (plaintiff) before the learned trial Court.

2. The facts in brief of the suit as presented by respondent-herein (plaintiff) before the learned trial Court were that she was the owner of the land in dispute measuring 21 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Dera as detailed in headnote of the plaint. Defendant-Kundan Lal, the predecessor of the appellants-herein challenged the allotment made in favour of Darshan Singh, grandfather of respondent-herein (plaintiff) by initiating various litigation. In LPA Nos. 320 and 465 both of the year 1988, this Court rejected his plea wherein he challenged the allotment made in favour of said Darshan Singh vide judgment dated 09.09.2004. The operative part of the judgment was also mentioned in the plaint and there is no need to mention the same herein in detail. Resultantly, CWP No.5013 of 1985 filed by Kundan Lal in this regard was dismissed and order of learned Single Judge passed in this writ petition was also set aside vide the abovementioned judgment. Possession of defendant Kundan Lal of the land of in dispute was stated to be unauthorized one. Plaintiff requested him to deliver the possession of this land to her, but defendant did not do so, hence was the present suit seeking decree for possession in respect of land in dispute, for the recovery of mesne profit for the use and occupation of this land w.e.f. 09.09.2004 to 09.03.2006 and also for permanent injunction whereby restraining the defendants from raising any kind of construction/change in nature of this land.

3. On receipt of summons in this case, defendant appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that suit in the present form in respect of suit land is not legally maintainable since a civil miscellaneous petition under Section 151 of CPC read with Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as a review application No.10 of 2004 in LPA No.465 of 1988 is pending in this Court. It was further his plea that from the very beginning of the allotment, possession of the suit land was delivered to him and still he is in its possession. He is in authorized occupation of this land. Further, he also referred to one CWP No.5013 of 1985 which was filed by him before this Court and decided in his favour vide judgment dated 19.01.1988. State of Haryana filed LPA No.320 of 1988 against this judgment dated 19.01.1988 which was decided in favour of the State. As abovementioned since review petition filed by him in the abovesaid LPA was pending when this suit was filed, so this suit was also stated to be premature one.

Further, he took the additional pleas that suit land was purchased by him in a restricted auction held on 05.05.1977, being the highest bidder and earnest money was deposited by him on the same very date, but this auction was not confirmed. He again purchased this land in its re-auction being the highest bidder on 23.11.1977 and deposited the earnest money. Possession of this land was delivered to him by the concerned rehabilitation authority in November, 1977 of which he is in possession till date since then. Sh. Tejinder Singh, uncle of present plaintiff, met him in May, 1985 and disclosed about the allotment of the land in dispute to his father Darshan Singh. Then ensued the litigation between auction purchaser, allottee and the State which was not culminated till the filing of written statement. Rest of the averments except the jurisdiction of the Court were denied.

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

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property on the grounds as mentioned in the plaint? OPP

ii. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of mesne profits as prayed for? OPP

iii