✦ Supreme Court of India · 11 Jan 1996

SH.MULKRAJ v. SH. SUNDER DAS & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 3045-46 of 1983K RAMASWAMY, G B PATTANAJK3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
11 Jan 1996
Bench
K RAMASWAMY, G B PATTANAJK

Provisions considered

Judgment

These appeals arise from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated December 9, 1980 made in Civil Revision No. 923/80. The facts not in dispute are that the appellant was inducted into possession of the properties, plots F bearing Nos. 32, 33 & 35 admeasuring 384 sq. yards situated in Wazir Pur, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi by Smt. Vimla Devi, the 3rd respondent. He had filed a civil suit for injunction against the respondent. Ultimately, the decree of the trial court granting injunction became final. In the meanwhile, the appellant as well as respondent Nos. I & 2 each have purchased 1/3 share of the property. Consequently, suit No. 27 n3 was filed for partition and separate possession thereof. Preliminary decree was granted on September 24, 1974 & final decree thereof was passed on May 22, 1980. Thus the rights of the parties stood worked out namely the appellant & respondent Nos. I and 2 are entitled to I/3rd share each in the total extent of the land as per the final decree granted by the civil court.

H G 377 -... 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) l S.C.R. In view of these farts, it is stated by Shri Rajindra Sachher and Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel, that the appeals have become infructuous. It may be mentioned at this stage that this appeal arises against a proceeding initiated under Order 21 Rule 32(2) of CPC for enforcement of the mandatory injunction granted by the civil court in execution. The trial Court ·granted execution to consign the respondents No. I and 2 to civil prison and mandatory injunction for removal of the respondents' possession of the entire property with police assistance. The appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the revision under Section 115 CPC as being barred by limitation, the High Court suo motu exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution and set·aside the order of the execution court. Feeling aggrieved against that order, this appeal has been filed.

In view of the fact that the parties have accepted the final decree dividing the properties into I/3rd share each and allowing that final decree to become final, the parties are bound by the decree and the appellant is entitled to I/3rd share for possession. Any other proceedings in respect of lands covered by the final decree in suit No. 27173 would stand closed and all the parties are to enforce their right under the final decree only: These appeals are accordingly disposed of with the above directions. E G.N. Appeal disposed of.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115; Constitution of India — art. 227.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Supreme Court of India, on 11 Jan 1996. The bench was K RAMASWAMY, G B PATTANAJK.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 3045-46 of 1983). ← Search more judgments