VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Caveat No. 358/2018

1. Counsel for the caveator enters appearance.

Caveat stands discharged.

CM No. 16333/2018 (Exemption)

2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

CM No. 16334/2018 (delay in re-filing)

3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA No. 345/2018 and CM No. 16332/2018 (stay)

4. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 23.12.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession, damages and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants. Respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the contesting defendants and respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The suit property is a plot of land admeasuring 200 sq. yards bearing private number A-27, West Vinod Nagar, Narwana Road, Delhi-110092 forming part of Khasra No. 822 admeasuring 3 bighas and 12 biswas situated in Village Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi. Out of the original 3 bighas and 12 biswas of land, the original owner Sh. Prem Singh, son of Sh. Shiv Charan, had constructed a house on 1 bigha and 16 biswas, and the other part of the land was acquired by the Government.

5. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Sh. Sanjay Kohli by a registered Sale Deed dated 23.12.1998. It was pleaded that Sh. Sanjay Kohli had purchased the suit property by a registered Sale Deed dated 21.4.1993 from the original owner Sh. Prem Singh. It was pleaded in the plaint that respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 had no right, title and interest in the suit property and they had illegally occupied the same. A legal notice dated 12.7.2000 was served upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 which was neither replied to nor complied with. Appellant/plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages with respect to the same property and against the same respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 29.9.2000 but the said suit was dismissed in default on 26.8.2003 and even an application filed for restoration of the suit was dismissed. It was further pleaded in the plaint that in March 2009 respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 started illegal and unauthorized construction on the suit property, and on no action being taken by the respondent no. 3/defendant no. 3/MCD, the subject suit was filed seeking possession, mesne profits and injunction.

6. Respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement. Respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that they had no concern with the suit property which is a part of Khasra No. 822 whereas the respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 are owners of land admeasuring 280 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No. 824 and which bears Property No. C-23, Old No. 23, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. Respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 claimed that they had purchased their property bearing no. C-23 from Sh. Kartar Singh on 24.9.1985. Respondent nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 also referred to the earlier suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff which was dismissed in default and not restored. Suit was accordingly prayed for being dismissed.

7. After pleadings were completed trial court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad on account of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property and as such the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the defendants? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly framed by no