Deepa Sharma, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals no. RFA no. 409/2004 (which challenges a common judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 03.03.2003, in Suit nos. 1558/84 and 204/85) and LPA No. 58/2005 (which is an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) directed against the judgment and order of a learned single judge dated 19.11.2004 in W.P.(C) No. 103/1986). The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) has preferred this appeal.

Facts in RFA No. 409/2004

2. In this appeal, DDA has challenges the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (hereafter “the trial court”) dated 03.03.2003 disposing of two Suits, Nos. 158/2002 and 159/2002. Initially these suits were filed before this court as Suit nos. 1558/84 and 204/85. By order dated 23.08.1990 both suits were consolidated and Suit no.1558/84 was treated as the main suit. Thereafter, due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, both suits were transferred to the District Court by order, dated 03.10.2002. The suits were renumbered as Suit Nos. 158/2002 and 159/2002. They were were also consolidated. Suit No.158/2002 is a suit for injunction filed by Ram Kaur and others (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiffs") against DDA, in respect of Plot nos. 17 and 18, Block 27 Shakti Nagar. In Suit no.159/2002, the plaintiffs claimed damages against D.D.A for demolition of structures on those plots. Both the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by judgment dated 03.03.2003.

3. In both these suits, the plaintiffs contend that one of them, i.e. the first plaintiff (Ram Kaur- referred to hereafter by name, as such) had purchased an area measuring 72.92 sq. yards with two kuchha pucca rooms on Plot No. 17/27 Shakti Nagar from Amna Bi by a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1981. To purchase some more portions, Ram Kaur and Gulam Moinuddin son of Sh. Shiekh Qayam Uddin entered into an agreement for purchase of the property from him. On Moinuddin’s refusal to execute the sale deed, Ram Kaur filed Suit no. 604/1981 titled Smt. Ram Kaur vs. Gulam Moinuddin for specific performance of the said agreement to sell. That suit was decreed on 17.05.1982 and Gulam Moinuddin executed a sale deed dated 10.11.1982 in favour of Ram Kaur, for a portion measuring 75 sq. yards which had a room, one store and two temporary jhuggis built over it, after obtaining necessary permission for execution of the sale deed from Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act); the permission was given after issuing notices to MCD and DDA. Ram Kaur’s name was mutated in the MCD’s records (in respect of Plot no.17/27 Shakti Nagar). It was claimed that Ram Kaur had leased out the said property to her son i.e. third plaintiff (Parmanand Parasher referred to hereafter as such) at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- exclusive of electricity and water charges.

4. It is submitted that the Delhi Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as “DIT”) by Resolution no. 10 dated 28.01.1943, allotted plot no. 17 block no. 27, to Amina Bi and Plot No. 18 Block no. 27 to Haji Mohd. Ismail, in lieu of the land, acquired by DIT and by virtue of these allotments Amna Bi and Mohd. Ismail had become the owners of the respective plots. It was further claimed that since sale deeds were not executed in favour of Amna Bi and Haji Mohd. Ismail, the matter was again taken up by DIT in its ordinary meeting on 09.01.1951 when it passed Resolution no. 11 and decided that the interest of Trust would not be prejudiced in any way if the agreements were not executed as it had received the entire consideration and had the right holders in possession and it did not matter if the right holders did not wish for execution of the agreement.

5. The plaintiffs also claimed that they purchased the adjoining plot No. 18 of block 27 measuring 223 sq. yards b