Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SH.MULKRAJ versus SH. SUNDER DAS AND ORS.

Decided
11 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 377 · 1996 INSC 52

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 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.

p. 377, margin E

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.

p. 378, margin A

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.

p. 378, margin A

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:

p. 378, margin C

These appeals are accordingly disposed of with the above directions. G.N. Appeal disposed of.

p. 378, margin D