Delhi High Court
Ram Karan And Others vs Shri Jagdeep Rai & Sons on 13 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999IIIAD(DELHI)529, 79(1999)DLT305, 1999(49)DRJ602
ORDER DR. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. In the present suit instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants an application has been filed by defendant No.4 seeking for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Another application has been filed by some applicants seeking for their impleadment in the suit. The said applications have been registered as I.A.No. 3708/1995 and I.A. No.10333/1998. Since an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the said application and by this order I propose to dispose of the same.
2. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants No.1 to 4 and have sought for an injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. In paragraph 23 of the plaint it is stated that defendant No.4 has been imp leaded as a formal party and has claimed no relief as against the said defendant. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that they had been allotted the suit land in question by the Gaon Sabha as an 'Asami' under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Their further case is that the suit land was vested in the Gaon Sabha on the report of the Halqa Patwari as the same was found to be used for non-agricultural purpose and that the land was finally vested in the Gaon Sabha. It was also pleaded that thereafter the plaintiffs removed the encroachments and again started using the land for agricultural purposes. It is also stated in paragraph 15 of the plaint that the matter is still pending adjudication before the SDM/Revenue Assistant for the purpose of enquiring into the allegation of the plaintiff that they have removed the encroachment.
3. In the reply filed to the application registered as I.A. 10333/1998 the plaintiffs have admitted that the proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act are pending. It is also an admitted position that a similar application as that of the applicants in I.A.10333/1998 has been filed by the present applicants before the Revenue Authority for being imp leaded in the said proceeding pending before the Revenue Authority.
4. The respondent No.3 has also filed a reply to the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2. In the said application it is stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought. It is specifically stated that the said plaintiffs sold their land to different individuals through their constituted attorney and the said aspect of sale became the subject matter of a civil proceeding wherein the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 and applicants in the present suit arrived at a settlement in the matter and to that effect statements of representatives of the parties to the suit were recorded by the court of Civil Judge while accepting the compromise submitted before it. A number of documents have been placed on record with the reply which indicate that the plaintiffs disposed off transferred their rights to the suit land by executing several documents in favour of Shri G.B.Tewari, Shri Daya Nand, Shri Jai Pal, Shri Dharmendra Sharma. It is also stated that the said persons further sold the suit land in their respective possession in favour of 40 odd persons on whose behalf application has been filed in the present suit for their impleadment. In the application filed for impleadment it is also stated that the plaintiffs sold the said suit land by way of execution of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, WILL and affidavits in favour of the aforesaid four persons and the plaintiffs also executed receipts for money consideration in respect thereof. It is also stated that the aforesaid 4 persons further sold plots of different sizes to different individuals by executing General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, WILL, payment receipts and delivered possession to those persons. It is also reiterated in the said application that a suit bearing No.287/1989 was filed in respect of the suit property by the plaintiffs in the court of the Sub Judge, Delhi wherein the said applicants were also imp leaded as defendants. The said suit was compromised amongst the parties and as such was dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff therein. Certified copy of the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, order sheets and Memo of Parties in the above suit is annexed with the application. It is also stated that the plaintiffs delivered physical possession of the plots which are the suit land of the present suit to the purchasers and the possession of the purchasers was duly recorded in form P-5 maintained by the Land Revenue Authorities. A copy of the Form P-5 with its English Translation is annexed as Annexure A-3. It is also stated that the said owners of the land, after acquiring the same through purchase as aforesaid raised brick wall and constructed rooms pursuant to which on the report of the area Patwari proceedings under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act had been initiated against the recorded Bhoomidars i.e. the plaintiffs. The said proceedings are pending disposal before the Revenue Assistants.
5. In the background of the aforesaid facts, let me now consider the application filed by defendant No.4 praying for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that a Civil Suit of the present nature is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is stated in the said application by defendant No.4 that considering the facts and circumstances of the case it would be apparent that the plaintiffs are clearly seeking for a declaration that they are Bhoomidars in respect of the land in question and that their possession be protected. The aforesaid allegation is refuted by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff contending inter alia that the plaintiffs in the present suit are seeking only a civil remedy of permanent injunction against their forcible dispossession in view of the illegal threats and attempts of the defendants No.1 to 3 against the plaintiff.
6. In order to appreciate the contention of the counsel appearing for the parties it would be necessary to extract below the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
"185: Cognizance of suits etc. under this Act: (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in Col. 7 of Schedule 1, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit/application or proceeding mentioned in Col. 3 thereof."
7. In this connection reference could also be made to the provisions of Sections 74, 82 and 190 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act came to be interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Hatti Vs. Sunder Singh; . In the said decision the Supreme Court authoritatively laid down that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred by Section 185 of the Act read with various items of the Ist Schedule. The said decision further laid down that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a complete Code under which it is clear that anyone wanting a declaration of his rights as a Bhoomidar, or aggrieved by a declaration issued without notice to him in favour of another, can approach the Revenue Assistant under Item 4 of the First Schedule. In the facts of the said case it was found that all the reliefs combined by the respondent in the suit were within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was also held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to deciding the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court which clearly implies that if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under Item 4 of Schedule I of the Act, that question will then be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the Civil Court. But a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari rights cannot directly approach the Civil Court.
8. Admittedly, a proceeding under section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is pending before the Competent Authority. The said Revenue Authority also has the power and jurisdiction to grant injunction as sought for in the present suit. Documentary evidence has been placed on record to indicate that the suit land has since been sold by the plaintiff in favour of 4 persons who in turn have sold the suit land to 40 odd persons. The said 40 odd persons are also before the Revenue Authority. It is also stated that the plaintiffs handed over possession of the suit land to the purchasers, who in turn have handed over possession to the applicants. Although the plaintiffs have taken a stand now that the said documents are forged and fabricated, it is apparently clear that the title of the plaintiff to the suit land is under cloud and therefore, the present suit is basically and necessarily a suit seeking for declaration that the plaintiffs should be declared as Bhoomidar and also for declaration of the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. There is specific bar for maintaining such a suit as laid down under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
9. It is specifically stated in the present suit that the plaintiffs also instituted a suit being suit No.287/1989 before the Civil Judge, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn after compromise was arrived at and recorded in the said suit. The aforesaid fact does not find mention in the plaint. Counsel for the plaintiffs however, sought to state that the plaintiffs were never involved or brought a suit being S.No.287/1989 and that the plaintiffs were never a party to the compromise. The said plea cannot be accepted on the face of it as the said suit was instituted by the plaintiffs themselves which was later on compromised and was dismissed as withdrawn. The said fact was very vital and relevant to the present suit and the said vital fact was suppressed in the present suit and conveniently omitted to be mentioned in the plaint. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath; (1994) 1 SCC 1. It was held in the said case by the Supreme Court that the non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial amounted to playing fraud on the court and that a litigant who approaches the court is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation and if he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. The Division Bench of this court in Satish Khosla Vs. M/s. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd.;
reported in 71(1998) Delhi Law Times 1(DB) dismissed the suit itself on the ground of non-disclosure and suppression of material facts by the plaintiff by observing as under:
"In our view, by withholding the plaint of the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing that in the earlier suit the respondent has not been able to get the injunction, the respondent is guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party and such acts had been done only in order to gain advantage on the other side and to get a stay in the second suit."
10. I am of the considered opinion that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act as the issues raised in the present suit could be effectively decided by the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under the provisions of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs in the present suit claim a right to the suit property as a Bhoomidar which right is denied on the ground that the plaintiffs have sold out their rights in the suit land. The rights, if any, of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land are under cloud, and therefore, for all practical purposes the plaintiffs are seeking for a declaration of their right as a Bhoomidar and also seeking for a declaration of their possession in respect of the suit land. There is apparently a dispute as to possession of the agricultural land and therefore, such dispute as to possession of agricultural land could be effectively adjudicated upon and decided under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, remedy being under Section 84 read with Item No.19 of the First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, therefore, in the present suit are within the competent jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant where a suit is pending and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of the provisions of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. The plaint is rejected. The suit stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.