VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation/defendant against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 5.12.2013 and the First Appellate Court dated 23.2.2015; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs with respect to the suit property failing in Khasra no. 262, 258 and 217/4 of Village Bhrola, Delhi. Neither in the plaint nor in the site plan filed with the plaint area of the suit property is specified, however, counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs state that the suit property is a plot admeasuring 300’ X 80’ as stated in the Agreement to Sell/Ex.PW1/3 dated 4.12.1998 executed by respondent no.2/Sh. Jai Prakash/plaintiff no. 2 in favour of respondent no.1/Sh. Prashant Narula/plaintiff no. 1. The suit has been decreed by the courts below in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs by declaring that the appellant is having no right, title and interest in the suit land depicted in the site plan Ex.PW1/4 and a decree for permanent injunction is passed restraining the appellant/defendant no. 1 from raising any construction on the suit land.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed the subject suit for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property pleading that they are the owners in possession of the suit property. Respondent no. 2/plaintiff no. 2 was pleaded to be the owner of the suit property by virtue of the suit property belonging to his forefathers as shown in the revenue record, and that respondent no. 2/plaintiff no. 2 had transferred rights in the suit property to respondent no. 1/plaintiff no. 1 in terms of an Agreement to Sell dated 4.12.1998/Ex.PW1/3. The subject suit was filed pleading that the appellant/defendant no. 1 sometimes allows persons to use the suit property for holding marriages although appellant/defendant no. 1 has no right and title over the suit property which is owned by respondent no. 2/plaintiff no. 2. Respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs therefore served a Notice dated 7.12.2004 upon the appellant/defendant no. 1 not to allow any person to use the plot, but instead the appellant/defendant no. 1 tried to raise a boundary wall over the suit property and therefore the subject suit came to be filed. It was also the case of respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs that the suit property had never been acquired and therefore the appellant/defendant no. 1 had no right, title and interest to the suit property.

3. Appellant/defendant no.1 had contested the suit and denied possession and title of the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the suit property. It was pleaded that the appellant/defendant no. 1 was the owner of the suit property, either because the same had earlier vested in the gaon sabha and that consequently when the village was urbanised under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, then by virtue of Section 150 (3) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the suit property vested in the Union of India or that the suit property was in the ownership of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi because of the fact that the colony was regularized by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in terms of its Resolutions dated 14.12.1960/Ex.DW1/3 and 16.9.1964/Ex.DW1/5 whereby parks and open areas/common spaces such as the suit property stands vested in the appellant/defendant no.1. The suit property as per the relevant resolutions and the accompanied lay out plans of the appellant/defendant no. 1 was shown to be a park. Suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.

4. Defendant no. 2/respondent no. 3 is M/s Adarsh Nagar Green Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) who denied the claim of the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2 by pleading that the suit land is government land and it is in exclusiv