JAGMAL Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge dated 21. 05. 2003, passed in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, plaintiffs in the suit, mainly on the basis of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) THE essential facts may be briefly delineated first.

(3.) IT is the case of the appellants-plaintiffs in the suit that since 1989, their predecessor-in-interest, one Shri Jagmal Singh who died during the pendency of the suit and prior to him, Shri Nathu Mal (his father), since 1977, owned and possessed the land comprised in Khasra No. 383 Village Tihar, New delhi, measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas. Nathu Mal died on 5. 02. 1989 and thereafter jagmal Singh continued to hold, own and possess the aforesaid land though a part of it was taken in the abadi and for road widening and thus the open land that remained with him was about 2 bighas. The land adjacent to the land of the plaintiff comprised in Khasra No. 1573 was in the possession of the Municipal corporation and the Municipal Corporation had some Municipal Stores there. One chet Ram filed a suit for recovery of possession against the M. C. D. in regard to this land which had been allegedly encroached upon by the M. C. D. and secured a decree for possession. When the said decree was got executed against the m. C. D. , and the M. C. D. was dispossessed, the M. C. D. on 4. 4. 1993 encroached upon and took illegal possession of the plaintiff's land i. e. , the suit land. Thereupon, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 28. 4. 1993 by registered A. D. Post to the defendant-M. CD. Despite the aforesaid legal notice, the M. C. D. did not remove itself from the suit land and instead, raised unauthorised construction thereon. The plaintiff accordingly on expiry of the period of notice of two months was constrained to file a suit for possession and mesne profits within six months of the date of dispossession i. e. , 4. 4. 1993 under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, from which the present appeal arises.