Sales and his evidence was with reference to the fact that the property that had been sold was with reference to Khasra No.2134-38 and the plaintiff had paid a part of consideration. He had also brought record of the property bearing Khasra No.2154-58 and in the site plain of Khasra No.2154-58, on the one side there was a house of the plaintiff and on the other side, there was a shop of one Roshan Lal. The property was described in its linear measurements of 40' along the bazar side and 39' on the back side and on the side of Roshan Lal's property the measurement was 46' and on the side of Shori Lal, the measurement was 47'. He claimed that he had brought the records for the property claimed by the defendant and as per the records, the property comprised of an extent of 204 sq. yards. He also stated that he had inspected the property for verification and it bore out on the spot that it was an evacuee property but he could not however tell the name of the muslim who was the owner of the property and who had vacated the property. He denied the suggestion that the property in dispute was wakf property and that the property was situate only in Khasra No.2134 where there existed a well. He denied also the suggestion that the property in Khasra No.2134-38 was a part of the property in Khasra No.2154-58. From the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is revealed that the plaintiff was seen to be in possession of the property although it is not clear from the records as to what had ultimately happened to the proceedings relating to the sale in favour of the plaintiff. Surely it had not concluded at the time of the trial and I have no better materials now.
