IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of establishing right, title, and interest in a property through evidence and the finality of judgments in previous legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1.  This regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') impugns the judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed by ADJ, (South), Saket District Courts, Delhi (`First Appellate Court or Appellate Court'), in RCA No. 18/2018 titled as Shakina v. DDA, whereby the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein impugning the judgment dated 20.02.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge acting as Rent Controller, South, Saket District Courts (`Trial Court or Civil Court'), in CS CSJ 82902/2016 (Old No. 704/2009), titled as Shakina v. DDA, wherein the Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by Appellant herein for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the Appellant against the Respondent i.e., Delhi Development Authority (`DDA').

2.  For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to in this judgment as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. The Appellant is being referred to as the plaintiff and the Respondent is being referred to as the defendant.

Facts

3.  The plaintiff filed a suit in the year 2009 for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant, DDA. It was averred by the plaintiff in the suit that she is the `owner' in exclusive possession of the property bearing Khasra Nos. 108 and 110 forming part of old Khasra No. 222/68 min of Village Begumpur, New Delhi (`said property').

3.1.  It was stated that plaintiff has been in possession of the said property since her birth and inherited the same from her father late Sh. Mussadi Khan. It was stated that plaintiff and her family members were using Khasra No. 108 as exclusive residence and Khasra No. 110 for private family burial and this position continued till the year 1962.

3.2.  It was stated that the Khasra No. 108 forming part of Village Abadi of Begumpur was left out and Khasra No.110 consisting of 2 Bigha 8 Biswa (`suit property') was acquired by the Government for planned development of Delhi vide Award No. 1409 dated 31.10.1962. It is stated in the written submissions dated 23.08.2023 filed before this Court that as on the date of passing of the award there were few graves in the suit property; and the rest of the portion was used by the plaintiff for cattle rearing. It is stated that there was kaccha construction, which was used for storing the fodder for the cattle.

3.3.  It was stated in the plaint that Government never proceeded to take the physical possession of the suit property and it continues to be in possession of the plaintiff till date.

3.4.  It is stated that the plaintiff-built structures in the suit property and later, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD') notified the suit property as premises no. T-2 and in this regard, reliance was placed on house tax receipts. In the written submissions dated 23.08.2023, it is stated that the plaintiff converted the kaccha construction existing in the suit property into a residential built-up structure in the year 1968-69 for her personal residence.

3.5.  It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had built temporary shops in the suit property, which were sealed by the MCD, but on representation, later vide order dated 06.07.2009 the shops were de-sealed in compliance of National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Act, 2009.

3.6.  In its written submission dated 02.08.2023 filed before this Court the plaintiff has stated that on 15.07.2009, DDA carried out demolition in the suit property wherein the boundary wall and the front structure of the property was demolished; and further demolition was stayed pursuant to the interim order passed by the Trial Court.

3.7.  The cause of action pleaded for filing the present suit against DDA was that on 15.07.2009 DDA had threatened to transgress into the suit property and demolish the structure standing therein.

3.8.  In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, plaintiff filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction for restraining the