Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. The challenge raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2003, passed in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, plaintiffs in the suit, mainly on the basis of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

2. The essential facts may be briefly delineated first.

3. It is the case of the appellants-plaintiffs in the suit that since 1989, their predecessor-in-interest, one Shri Jagmal Singh who died during the pendency of the suit and prior to him, Shri Nathu Mai (his father), since 1977, owned and possessed the land comprised in Khasra No. 383 Village Tihar, New Delhi, measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas. Nathu Mai died on 5.02.1989 and thereafter-Jagmal Singh continued to hold, own and possess the aforesaid land though a.part of it was taken in the abadi and for road widening and thus the open land that remained with him was about 2 bighas. The land adjacent to the land of the plaintiff comprised in Khasra No. 1573 was in the possession of the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation had some Municipal Stores there. One Chet Ram filed a suit for recovery of possession against the M.C.D. in regard to this land which had been allegedly encroached upon by the M.C.D. and secured a decree for possession. When the said decree was got executed against the M.C.D., and the M.C.D. was dispossessed, the M.C.D. on 4.4.1993 encroached upon and took illegal possession of the plaintiffs land i.e., the suit land. Thereupon, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 28.4.1993 by registered A.D. Post to the defendant-M.CD. Despite the aforesaid legal notice, the M.C.D. did not remove itself from the suit land and instead, raised unauthorised construction thereon. The plaintiff accordingly on expiry of the period of notice of two months was constrained to file a suit for possession and mesne profits within six months of the date of dispossession i.e., 4.4.1993 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, from which the present appeal arises.

4. The defendant, who is the respondent in the present appeal, sought to contest the suit and apart from raising legal pleas under Sections 477 and 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Section 10 of the C.P.C., asserted that the land in question belonged to and vested in the defendant-Corporation and that the Corporation was in actual physical possession thereof for the last 20 years without any interruption or hindrance. Significantly also, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of suppressing the material fact that he had filed an earlier suit which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge at the time of institution of the present suit.

5. The appellant-plaintiff, in replication, while reiterating his prior possession over the suit land, categorically admitted having filed an earlier suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, but stated that it was proposed to file a transfer application to enable both the suits to be tried together by this Court. Such a transfer application was never filed nor the outcome of the said suit is known.

6. On the basis of the claims and counter-claims of the parties, the learned Single Judge on 21.3.1996 framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Sections 477-478B

M.C.D. Act? OPD.

2. Whether the suit is barred under Section 10 CPC? OPD.

3. Whether the defendant has any right to possess the suit land? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession as alleged? OPP.

5. To what mesne profits is the plaintiff entitled and from what date and at what rate? OPD.

6. What directions are necessary in terms of Order 20 Rule 12 CPC?

7, Relief.

7. The learned Single Judge while deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-respondent, disposed of issues No. 3 to 6 together, decreeing the suit in respect