JUDGMENT :

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]

1. The instant regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed on behalf of the appellants who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi (hereinafter “Trial Court”) dated 3rd May 2007 in suit bearing no. 300/2004 titled ‘Sardari Lal Tandon & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi’ whereby the suit for possession and recovery of damages initiated by the plaintiffs therein, including the appellants, was dismissed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. A perusal of the record unravels the following facts that have culminated into the controversy which falls for consideration before this Court:-

i. The entire matter pertains to land comprised in Khasra No. 262/258/217/4 of Village Bharolla, which came to be urbanized and be numbered as plots bearing no. C408, C409, C342 and C343, Majlis Park, Delhi (hereinafter “Suit Property”). The plaintiffs before the Trial Court moved the District Court seeking possession in respect of the said plots alongwith damages of Rs.20,000/- per month and damages pendente lite from the date of suit till the delivery of possession. The appellant no. 1, being a co-owner of the Suit Property, was arrayed as plaintiff no. 5 in the suit before the Trial Court and appellant no. 2, his son, as plaintiff no. 4. Plaintiff no. 1 to 3 and 6 executed a General Power of Attorney (hereinafter “GPA”) in favour of the appellant no. 2 herein.

ii. On part of the property lying vacant and falling under plot no. C342 and C343 the said property, the Majlis Park Welfare Association decided to open a charitable dispensary for the purpose of which it started to raise construction over the plot. Upon being aggrieved by the said actions, the plaintiffs before the Trial Court filed a complaint with the SHO, PS Adarsh Nagar on 28th December 1996 and also, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the General Secretary and residents of the Association, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn as the plaintiffs had not furnished a notice in accordance with the Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

iii. The Trial Court ultimately framed the following issues:-

I. Whether the possession of the suit land was handed over to defendant?

II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land?

III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages? If so, to what amount?

IIIA. Whether the documents of the title purported to be executed by M/s Chief Housing Corporation in favour of plaintiff No 1 are fabricated as stated in para 1 of the written statement?

IV. Relief.

iv. The issues I, II, III were decided in favour of the defendants while IIIA was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and ordered a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

v. The appellants are aggrieved by the said impugned judgment dated 3rd May 2007 and have challenged the same on several grounds as discussed hereinafter.

SUBMISSIONS

3. This Court shall now delineate the submissions made on behalf of the parties in their pleadings, written submissions as well as those made during the course of hearing.

On behalf of the Appellants

4. Mr. Arvind Varma, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Trial Court has committed grave error in passing the impugned judgment and has misinterpreted the pleadings and the statements of the Plaintiff Witnesses. It is submitted that the co-ownership of the appellant is not disputed. The Trial Court failed to consider that the Khatauni/Khasra Girdawari as well as the statement of PW-2 proved on record that the appellant no. 1 is the co-owner of the property.

5. It is submitted that the plaintiffs, through their GPA, filed a complaint with the SHO on 28th December 1996, when it was found that the Association had started to raise construction over the Suit Plots.

6. It is submitted that the appellant no. 1 had constructed four rooms and gi