WELDON SALES CORPORATION Vs. SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid three petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners have impugned the common order dated 17.4.2009 passed by Shri D.K.Garg, Civil Judge/District Central, Delhi in execution Nos. 110/2006, 111/2006 & 112/2006.

(2.) THESE petitions demonstrate how difficult it is for a decree holder, who has obtained a decree in his favour after contest, to actualize the fruits of that decree. On account of, inter alia, the stubbornness, resilience and ingenuinity of the petitioners, a decree for possession passed in favour of the predecessors -in -interest of the respondents as early as on 31.1.1967, still remains to be executed. By launching one action after another in different names and before different forums, the petitioners and the other occupants of the suit properties have postponed the delivery of actual physical possession of the suit property to the decree holders/their successors -in - interest.

(3.) THE respondents filed suits for possession against the tenants which were decreed on 31.1.1967. The first appeal against the judgment was dismissed on 1.8.1970. The tenant Sardar Mool Singh died in the meantime and his legal representatives preferred a regular second appeal in this Court. On 7.11.1978, in the second appeal, issue No. 1 was remanded to the first appellate Court for deciding it afresh after recording evidence. This issue was "whether the plaintiff was not the owner and property in question is vested in the DDA - The first appellate Court recorded evidence and decided the issue against the judgment debtors. The second appeal of the judgment debtors was dismissed by this Court on 9.11.1985. This Court held that the plaintiffs, though not the owners of the suit property (as the sale deed of the land had not been executed in their favour) nevertheless were in legal possession of the suit property and had the possessory title over the said property. It was held that mere cancellation of the sale agreement was not sufficient to extinguish the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit land. The tenants were required to prove that the paramount owner (DDA herein) had re -entered the land. The Court held that the possession had not been taken by the paramount owner i.e. the DDA and that there was no reliable evidence for the taking of actual or symbolic possession by the DDA. The Court further held that symbolic possession, generally speaking, can be taken by the authority by accepting the tenants as its own tenants and that there was no evidence that the tenants had ever attorned to the DDA or paid rent or damages to it. The proceedings for ejectment had been initiated but even the symbolic possession had not been taken over and the right of the plaintiff to claim eviction had not been extinguished.