Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is defendant’s appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”).

2. Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for appellants and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondents despite the case having been called in revised.

3. The sole substantial question of law formulated by this Court on 18.4.1978, while hearing appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. is whether the suit in question was barred by time.

4. Subsequently, this Court added five more substantial questions of law by order dated 25.11.2010 and the same are:

“(b) Whether the findings recorded in Original Suit No. 7 of 1965 to the effect that there was no house situated in the village Behari, which could fit in the boundaries given in sale certificate (Ext-1) became final and operates as res-judiciata between the parties.

(c) Whether the lower appellate Court misinterpreted and misconstrued the sale certificate (ext-1) as boundaries as disclosed in it did not tally with the house in dispute referred in paragraph-10 of written statement and contrary findings recorded are perverse and based on misreading of evidence (Commissioner’s reprot).

(d) Whether there were any necessities for the defendant to file cross objection challenging the particular finding against him when the ultimate decree itself was in his favour.

(e) Whether right of the purchaser in public auction and validity of sale under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 could be seen by the Civil Court in view of bar created by Section 27 of the said Act when entire proceedings are void and fictitious.

(f) Whether the plaintiffs have to prove the sale under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 seeking declaration of rights on the basis of same.”

5. This appeal has arisen from Original Suit No. 177 of 1972 instituted by plaintiff respondent Nos. 1 to 6. During pendency of this appeal, plaintiff respondent No. 3 and sole defendant appellant died and were substituted by their legal heirs.

6. Plaintiff respondents had sought eviction of defendant appellant from the property in dispute and handing over possession thereof to plaintiffs, besides mesne profits and damages etc.

7. The plaint case set up is that the disputed house situated at Village Bihari, Pargna Khatauli, district Muzaffar Nagar was auctioned on 27.12.1957 by Custodian, Evacuee Property and purchased by Jamaiyat Ram, father of plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 4 to 6, and husband of plaintiff No. 3. Sale certificate was issued in favour of Jamaiyat Ram on 27.7.1962. Jamaiyat Ram died in 1971. The property in dispute devolved on his legal heirs, i.e., plaintiffs. Possession of defendant on the property in dispute is unauthorised and illegal. He has no right to continue therewith.

8. The defendant contested the suit and denied any right of plaintiffs on the property in dispute. It is said that defendant does not possess any property which belongs to or own by Jamaiyat Ram. He also disputed alleged auction purchase and said that he is in possession of property in dispute, being owner, for the last more than 12 years, and, from the period of his ancestors. He also referred to O.S. No. 7 of 1965 instituted by Jamaiyat Ram for ejectment and recovery of rent against defendant, which, ultimately failed, having been dismissed on 20.7.1965 by Trial Court and appeal was dismissed on 3.2.1966. The aforesaid judgement would operate res judicata and the suit in question, therefore, was not maintainable.

9. The Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “T.C.”) dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.1977, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove that disputed house is same which was owned by them and claimed to be house No. 1. Besides, suit was also found barred by time, inasmuch as, defendant proved that he was residing in disputed premises since prior to 1.8.1959, and the suit having been filed on 24.3.1972, was apparently bar