The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of adverse possession in property disputes, the significance of continuous and hostile possession, and the impact of non-execution of decrees on subsequent legal claims.

1. Appellant-plaintiff no. 1 along with respondent nos. 2 and 4 (plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 respectively) filed a suit for partition and perpetual injunction against the respondent nos. 1 and 3 (defendant nos. 1 and 2) in respect of property bearing no. 3477, Gali No. 4/5, Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (for short, hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). By the judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1980 trial court dismissed the suit, hence, this appeal has been preferred by plaintiff no.1 wherein plaintiff nos.2 and 3 have been impleaded as respondent nos. 2 and 4 as they chose not to challenge the impugned judgment and decree.

2. Plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that plaintiff no. 1 was daughter and plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and defendant no. 2 were grand children; whereas defendant no. 1 was daughter-in-law of Shri Maman, who died in the year 1948. The pedigree table of Late Shri Maman is as under :-

3. Late Shri Maman got the suit property built in the year 1924 after

“PEDIGREE TABLE” acquiring the land underneath it on lease during the year 1919 from Delhi Improvement Trust. Late Shri Maman gifted the suit property to his daughters, that is, plaintiff no. 1 and Smt. Dharam Kaur @ Modi (mother of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 and defendant no.2) on 19th August, 1945 through a registered Gift Deed dated 21st August, 1945. The daughters along with widows of pre-deceased son continued to reside with Late Shri Maman in the suit property till his death. They were still in possession of the suit property. Smt. Sarupi, second widow of deceased Prabhu, son of Late Shri Maman, was issue less. She remarried after the death of Prabhu prior to coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hence, she was not entitled to any share in the suit property being the widow of pre-deceased son. Plaintiff no. 1 and Late Smt. Dharam Kaur, mother of plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and defendant no. 2 filed a suit for possession in respect of the suit property on 19th December, 1946 against the defendant no.1 which was decreed by Sub Judge, Ist Class on 23rd March, 1948. Defendant no. 1 and Smt. Sarupi went in appeal before Punjab High Court which was partly allowed on 10th October, 1954 whereby plaintiffs were granted a decree for possession of half of the suit property. Accordingly, plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and defendant no. 2 were joint owners of the suit property. The remaining half portion of the suit property fell into the share of defendant no.1 and Smt. Sarupi. It was alleged that defendant no. 2 was not interested in institution of the partition suit, thus, was arrayed as defendant no.2. Defendant no. 1 had been openly claiming herself to be the exclusive owner of suit property and was threatening to alienate and transfer the suit property, hence, the suit for partition and perpetual injunction.

4. Defendant no. 1 filed written statement wherein she took certain preliminary objections to the effect that suit was barred by limitation; suit was undervalued, inasmuch as, insufficient court fee was paid; suit was not maintainable; suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “The Code”). On merits, it was denied that Late Shri Maman acquired and got built the suit property after taking the lease of land underneath the built up portion from Delhi Improvement Trust in the year 1919. It was alleged that Late Shri Maman was very poor and had no means to acquire the suit property. It was Prabhu, son of Late Shri Maman and husband of defendant no. 1 who had purchased the land underneath the disputed property from Shri Lachhman son of Shri Sadhu and raised construction from his own earnings. Shri Lachhman had taken the lease from the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi. Prabhu took the land on lease for a period of 20 years in the name of his father-Late Shri Maman out of respect for his father. It was alleged that suit property was self acquired property of Late Shri Prabhu who raised the const