A suit for possession is not barred by limitation if prior litigation has affected the rights of the parties involved. Ownership established through a Will takes precedence over claims of co-ownership by family settlements.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. This is a regular second appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 27th July, 2020 passed in an appeal challenging judgment/decree dated 27th October, 2018 passed by the Trial Court.

3. The property in question is property bearing no. 26/67, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008, a two-storey house on a 100 Sq. Yards lease-hold plot (hereinafter, `suit property'). The Plaintiff/Respondent No.1- Mr. Madan Lal Bhatia (hereinafter, `Plaintiff') filed a suit for possession against various family members i.e., the children of his brother - Mr. Kishan Chand Bhatia, seeking reliefs of possession, mesne profits, etc. The case of the Plaintiff is that by Will dated 6th February, 1985, executed by his mother - Mrs. Ram Lubhai, he became the absolute owner of the suit property. According to the Plaintiff, Mrs. Ram Lubhai was the absolute owner of the suit property in view of the sale agreement dated 8th November, 1960. The suit property was originally allotted in the name of his father - Mr. Ram Chand Bhatia. After the death of Mr. Ram Chand Bhatia, the suit property was mutated in the name of his mother - Mrs. Ram Lubhai and thereafter, by way of a Will, the same has been bequeathed in favour of the Plaintiff.

4. The Appellants, who are the legal heirs of Mr. Kishan Chand Bhatia, have set up a case that their father i.e., Mr. Kishan Chand Bhatia was one of the co-allottees of the suit property. The allotment was incorrectly issued in the name of Mrs. Ram Lubhai by the authorities i.e., the L&DO, and this allotment in favour of the mother was reversed on 30th August, 1976 by way of a corrigendum. However, litigation ensued between Mrs. Ram Lubhai and Mr. Kishan Chand Bhatia. Finally, a corrigendum dated 17th April, 1978 was issued, reversing the earlier corrigendum which, in effect, meant that the allotment went back in the name of Mrs. Ram Lubhai. The said corrigendum dated 17th April, 1978 was challenged by the legal representatives of Mr. Kishan Chand Bhatia in W.P.(C) 66/1979 titled Kishan Chand Bhatia (Thr. LRs) v. UOI & Ors..

5. It is a matter of judicial record that initially, certain interim orders were passed on 22nd March, 1979. However, finally, vide order dated 2nd March, 2005, the said writ petition was dismissed and the allotment in favour of Mrs. Ram Lubhai came to be upheld.

6. In the suit for possession, various defences were raised by Mr. Kishan Chand Bhatia and the following issues were framed by the Trial Court on 16th August, 2004:

"1 Whether the defendants are co-owners of the suit property? OPD

2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP

3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit and damages to the tune of Rs.87,500/- as prayed for? OPP

4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP

5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit, interest pendente lite and future, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP

6 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be stayed under section X of the CPC in view of the Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 66/1976 with hon'ble High Court of Delhi? OPD

7 Relief."

7. Vide judgement dated 27th October, 2018, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff qua the relief of possession. Some of the other reliefs including the prayer for mesne profits, were however rejected. An appeal was filed and cross-objections were also filed challenging the said order. Vide the impugned order dated 27th July, 2020, the Appellate Court upheld the decree of possession and also awarded mesne profits. The operative portion of the order in appeal reads as under:

"54. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed defendants/appellants against Impugned Judgement and Decree dated 27.10.2018 is dismissed without costs.

55. Cross Objections filed by the plainti