Point of law: Rights of appellants qua property since long have already been foreclosed, they are barred from agitating anything anew and/or contrary to settled position qua property and their rights in it.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant nos. 1 to 6/original defendant nos. 3 to 8, [Hereinafter collectively referred to as “appellants”] before the learned Single Judge are impugning the judgment dated 18.08.2022, whereby, vide a decree of declaration, the six sale deeds dated 30.05.1997 executed by one Mr. Pradeep Kumar Khanna, [Hereinafter referred to as “Original Owner”] in their favour have been declared null and void and the respondent no.1/original plaintiff before the Learned Single Judge has been held to be entitled to cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

2. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, we are reminded of the ‘Phoenix, an ancient mythological bird symbolizing resurrection, which with amongst other qualities, is known to rise from the ashes over and over again. The appellants, vide this appeal, while trying to play the role of the said ‘Phoenix, are alas forgetting that even the ‘Phoenix though can rise from the ashes but cannot flog a dead horse. In essence, though the appellants, vide the present appeal, have challenged the impugned decree with all vigour and renewed energy after suffering at the hands of the Learned Single Judge, however, the said effort of the appellants is miscued as, unfortunately, they are merely referring to issues/aspects which have already been agitated before and have been decided and foreclosed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and which have been in turn recognised, admitted and followed by this Court at different levels from time to time. In effect, the appellants are draining all their energy over a lost cause which has been stamped and cannot be undone by this Court at this level.

3. Today, though the present appeal is listed before this Court for the first time, however, since the facts and issues involved in the present appeal already stand settled, we have taken up the same for hearing to proceed with this appeal. For this, we have had the pleasure of hearing the learned counsel for the appellants at length and also the learned counsel(s) for the respondents, who appear on caveat.

4. Succinctly put, the respondent no.1 instituted a suit for declaration, being CS(OS) 864/2014 seeking declaration of six sale deeds dated 30.05.1997 executed by the original owner, who was the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 4 to 6 herein in favour of the appellants with respect to property bearing no. 21 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi-110001, [Hereinafter referred to as “property”], as null and void as also their cancellation from the records of the concerned Sub-Registrar, New Delhi. During its pendency before the learned Single Judge, the appellants filed an application under Order VII rule 11 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as “the Code”] specifically raising two grounds, firstly alleging that the suit of the respondent no.1 was time barred and secondly there was no disclosure of a cause of action in the plaint. Thereafter, after framing the sole issue, i.e. “Whether late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna (now represented through defendant nos. 9 to 11) executed a valid sale deed dated 30th May, 1997 in favour of defendant no. 3 to 8 respectively? OPP” and as the parties did not wish to lead evidence, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pronounce the impugned judgment under challenge before us.

5. The cryptic factual matrix of this case prior to the institution of CS(OS) 864/2014 reveals that the original owner, after entering into an Agreement to Sell dated 13.09.1988 with the respondent no.1 herein, failed to execute the Sale Deed in its favour. This prompted the respondent no.1 herein to institute a suit for specific performance, damages and injunction, being CS(OS) 425/1993, against the original owner, wherein the Learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.02.1993, which was confirmed on 31.01.2000, restrained the original owner from creating any third party rights in respect of the property. De-hors the said orders, the original owner first executed six Agreements to Sell da