decreed in an auction purchase. The present plaintiff appears to have purchased the property. In the RS record of right, the possession of the plaintiff was shown as ‘Jor Dang’. It appears that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, being Suit No. 124 of 1977 for declaration of title as the present appellant denied the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that the rent suit for recovery of rent being Rent Suit No. 1736 of 1956 was decreed and subsequently, one execution case was filed being Execution Case No. 740 of 1957 and the present plaintiff as the auction purchaser, purchased the property and thereafter, the she got possession of the suit property through Court. The plaintiff relied upon the sale certificate dated 18th February, 1958. The plaintiff alleged that in spite of such document of title since the defendant was questioning the title of the plaintiffs, the said suit for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff was filed in which the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendant no.1 on 12-02-1979. It is not in dispute that the appellant received the summons and appeared before the trial court but did not contest the said suit. The plaintiff alleged that he was dispossessed from the suit property on 5th July, 1998 and thereafter, he filed a suit for recovery of possession.
