1996 INSC 0069
                                                       Mulk Raj

                                                           Vs

                                               Sunder Das and Others

                                     Civil Appeals Nos. 3045-3046 of 1983

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      11.01.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. These appeals arise from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 9-12-1980 made in Civil
Revision No. 923 of 1980. The facts not in dispute are that the appellant was inducted into
possession of the properties, plots bearing Nos. 32, 33 and 35 admeasuring 384 sq. yards situated in
Wazirpur, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi by Smt. Vimla Devi, the third 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 Respondents 1 and 2 each have
purchased 1/3rd share of the property. Consequently, Suit No. 27 of 1973 was filed for partition and
separate possession thereof. Preliminary decree was granted on 24-9-1974 and final decree thereof
was passed on 22-5-1980. Thus the rights of the parties stood worked out, namely, the appellant and
Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the total extent of the land as per the final
decree granted by the civil court.

2. In view of these facts, it is stated by Shri Rajinder Sachar and Shri G. L. Sanghi, learned Senior
Counsel, that the appeals have become infructuous.

3. 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 Respondents 1 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.

4. In view of the fact that the parties have accepted the final decree dividing the properties into
1/3rd share each and allowing that final decree to become final, the parties are bound by the decree
and the appellant is entitled to 1/3rd share for possession. Any other proceedings in respect of lands
covered by the final decree in Suit No. 27 of 1973 would stand closed and all the parties are to
enforce their right under the final decree only.

5. These appeals are accordingly disposed of with the above directions.