IMPORTANT POINT
Executing Court has authority to adjudicate all questions pertaining to right, title or interest in property arising between parties including claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession from immovable property.

JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from the judgment and orders dated 07.04.2016 and 04.11.2016 passed in C.R.P No. 152 of 2012 and R.P No. 487 of 2016 respectively, whereby the High Court has affirmed the order of the Executing Court dated 11.09.2012 holding that the decree for possession of immoveable property is not executable against the judgment-debtor.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant (since deceased represented through Lrs.) who is the original plaintiff, leased out land measuring 400 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 4/39/1 situated at village Khureji Khas, Abani Radheypuri, Ilaqa Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Land) within the limit of Municipal Corporation Delhi vide lease deed dated 06.01.1973 to the respondent-Corporation (Original defendant) for a period of 10 years initially @ monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, which was renewable with the consent of both the parties, however the lease was not renewed subsequently after expiry on 06.01.1983. Thereafter, the appellant served a notice upon the respondent-Corporation dated 02.12.1987 vide which the respondent-Corporation was called upon to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the Suit Land on or before 06.01.1988. The respondent-Corporation did not turn to the demand of the appellant.

3.1 The appellant/plaintiff filed Suit No. 205 of 1988 for recovery of possession in respect of the Suit Land against respondent-Corporation/defendant before the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Delhi, which was decreed for possession in favour of appellant/plaintiff and against the respondent-Corporation/defendant on 23.03.1990.

3.2 Thereafter, the appellant filed execution proceedings bearing Execution Case No. 7 of 1991 to get the decree for possession executed against the judgment-debtor i.e. respondent-Corporation. On 03.12.1993, the appellant/decree-holder obtained warrants for delivery of possession from the Executing Court against the respondent-Corporation. When the appellant/decree-holder along with the police force went on spot to execute the warrants they were resisted and because of such high-handed behaviour including, inter alia, the threats of the employees/agents of the respondent-Corporation to intimidate the appellant, warrants for delivery of possession could not be executed.

3.3 At this stage, the respondent-Corporation moved an application before the Executing Court to stay the operation of the warrants for delivery of possession earlier issued. The Executing Court stayed the execution proceedings until 15.04.1994, while taking into consideration that the demolition of the school building upon the decretal land would affect the career of around 400 students.

3.4 The respondent-Corporation filed objections on the ground that the spot at which the school is built admeasures 1700 square yards and the disputed decretal land cannot be identified. The said objections were rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 27.05.1994.

3.5 On 19.08.1994, the appellant filed an application for issuance of fresh warrants of possession and the respondent-Corporation on the same day also moved an application to stay the execution proceedings on the ground that the respondent-Corporation had undertaken land acquisition proceedings of the decretal land. By a subsequent application dated 01.03.1996 the respondent-Corporation stated that it had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- with the Land Acquisition Commissioner, Delhi.

3.6 The Executing Court vide order dated 19.03.1999 dismissed the said applications of the respondent-Corporation on the ground that the respondent-Corporation had not made any serious effort in a span of eight years to acquire the decretal land and that the acquisition of the decretal land can take place even after the same is handed over to the appellant.

3.7 On account of the refusal of the respondent-Corporation to hand over possession of the decretal land to the appellant, the appellant filed a Contempt Pe