Delhi District Court
Sh. Baljeet Singh vs Sh. Iqbal Singh on 9 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MR. SUNIL BENIWAL ,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -02, (CENTRAL), DELHI
Case No. 331/15
Suit no. 9914/19
Sh. Baljeet Singh
S/o Late Shri Hira Ram
R/o Village & P.O Nangal Dewat
New Delhi-110037 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Iqbal Singh Property dealer S/o Karan Singh C/o Shakuntala Property Dealer at Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Shri Anup Singh S/o Late Sh. Kundan Singh, R/o 1258/2, Village Nangal Dewat, New Delhi .........Defendants Date of Institution of Suit : 18.04.2007 Date on which reserved for judgment : 30.09.2019 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.10.2019 SUIT FOR DECLARATION, CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED AND FOR GRANT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 1/38 This is the judgment of case titled as Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh & Another. There were originally two defendants in the present case. Defendant no.1 is Iqbal Singh, defendant no.2 is Anup Singh who was declared exparte since the beginning of the case. This is a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction. Relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the present suit as stated in the plaint are as follows :-
1 That the plaintiff is the co-owner and has been in possession of plot bearing khasra number 1258/1/2 total measuring one bigha 17 biswa in the extended Lal Dora of village Nangal Dewat since his birth. Grandfather of the plaintiff was owner in possession of the entire plot above-mentioned.
After his death, this plot was inherited by his 2 sons namely Hiraram and Ghasiram to the extent of one half share each and they were in possession of their respective share. Hiraram died in 1968 leaving behind his widow Smt. Maina Devi, 2 sons namely and Baljit Singh and Mangeram, 3 daughters namely Laxmi Devi, Santosh Devi and Kamla Devi. All the aforesaid legal heirs acquired right title and interest to the extent of 1/6th share and were in actual physical possession. After the death of Smt. Maina Devi on 18 th may 1998 and Shri Mange Ram who died on 18th November 2004, their respective shares devolved upon the legal heirs. The share of late Hira ram is under occupation and possession of Shri Baljit Singh, the plaintiff, Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of Mange ram, Pradeep Kumar and Mahipal, both sons of Mange ram and Ms. Sonu, daughter of late Mange ram. That Smt. Maina CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 2/38 Devi alongwith her two sons Mange Ram (since deceased) and Baljeet Singh were in possession and occupation of their half share of the plot and another half share was in possession of Sh. Ghasi Ram. In the year 1989 a dispute arose with regard to the above-mentioned property with Shish Pal, Anoop Singh and Sita Singh consequent to which Smt. Maina Devi and Sh. Ghasi Ram filed a civil suit for injunction titled as Ghasi Ram, Maina Devi and Mange Ram, the plaintiffs versus Shish Pal, Anoop Singh and Sita Singh, as the defendants. This suit no. 246/1989 was compromised out of court and statements of the parties were recorded and suit was disposed of on 30.1.1990. As per this compromise, it was decided that half portion of the suit property would remain in possession of Smt. Maina Devi and the other half portion belonging to Ghasi Ram shall be transferred in the name of Sita Singh. In the portion of Smt. Maina Devi, Mange Ram and Baljeet Singh, a double story house was constructed and godowns and shops in the same were let out to tenants and the rent was shared between Mange Ram and Baljeet. After the death of Mange Ram, his legal heirs used to take the entire rent from the tenants. Consequently, Baljeet Singh filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts against the legal heirs of Mange Ram because the suit property is ancestral property. The said suit for partition no. 235/2005 titled as Baljeet Singh versus Kamla is pending disposal. Defendant no.1 and 2 got their names recorded in the revenue records by misrepresentation on the basis of a forged and fabricated will executed by Sita Singh. Sita Singh had no right, title or interest in respect to the portion CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 3/38 of Maina Devi, Mange Ram and Baljeet Singh. Name of Sita Singh was wrongly recorded. The entire land situated in the old Lal Dora Abadi as well as extended Lal Dora Abadi was notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was a special case of acquisition. There were no revenue records available because land of Abadi Deh was recorded as Gaon Sabha in the revenue records. Therefore, the acquisition authority decided to carry out a survey for the purpose of ascertaining the ownership and occupation. Award No. 16/1986-87 was passed by LAC pursuant to the notification under section 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act. The Government made a policy to rehabilitate the village inhabitants at some other place. Defendant no.1 got his name entered into the records by fraud and misrepresentation in the list of entitled persons. Plaintiff came to know this fact when he received a list of entitled persons. Having no other alternative, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against defendant no.1 and the Airport Authority bearing suit no. 1526/2006 titled as Baljeet Singh versus Iqbal and others. Defendant no.1 filed written statement in the above-mentioned suit alongwith a forged sale deed allegedly executed by Ghasi Ram and Heera Singh in favour of Sita Singh. The above-mentioned sale deed allegedly executed by father of plaintiff is a forged and fabricated document. Thumb impression of father of the plaintiff has been shown on the sale deed. However, father of the plaintiff never put his thumb impression and used to put his signatures in English. Sita Singh is estopped from claiming ownership and possession of half share of Maina Devi as she had earlier CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 4/38 admitted the possession and ownership of plaintiff and his mother in the previous suit. Now they cannot be permitted to assume an inconsistent position. Mutation in the name of Sita Singh with regard to land in Khasra No. 1258/2 admeasuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswah is against law. Plaintiff came to know about the sale deed executed by father of plaintiff in the month of March, 2007 when defendant no.1 filed his written statement in the other old suit no 330/15 titled as Baljeet Singh versus Iqbal Singh and others in which plaintiff impleaded 4 defendants namely Iqbal singh, Airport Authority, DDA and the Nodal Agency constituted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. During the course of the arguments, it was disclosed that objections regarding correction of mutation filed by legal heirs of Mange Ram in collusion with defendant no.1 were dismissed. Defendant no.1 colluded with legal heirs of Mange Ram, brother of the plaintiff, to deprive the plaintiff of the suit property. The documents sought to be canceled are affecting the valuable rights of the plaintiff with respect to plot of land mentioned above. Now defendant no.1 is visiting suit property and threatening to take forcible possession on the basis of documents executed by Sita Singh and on the basis of sale deed dated 24.04.1964 which is a forged document. Plaintiff has rights qua the suit property and has been in possession of the same. If the defendants succeed in their nefarious designs it shall lead to irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated by way of money. The cause of action arose on 30.1.1990 when defendant no.2 made a statement on behalf of Sita Singh. It again arose when Sita Singh transferred CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 5/38 the entire land in favour of defendant no.2. It further arose when defendant no.1 was allotted the alternative plot in lieu of the land in Khasra No. 1258/2. It is prayed that this court be pleased to ;
(1) cancel the sale deed dated 22.4.1964 allegedly executed by father of plaintiff with respect to his share of property no. 1258/2 situated in extended Lal Dora of Village Nangal Dewat.
(2) pass a declaratory decree that plaintiff is owner of his share out of half share in property no. 1258/2 as mentioned above and defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest qua the share of the plaintiff on the basis of sale deed or any other document of transfer.
(3) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, their agents, assigns etc thereby restraining them to take forcible possession of the suit property which is under the joint occupation and possession of plaintiff and legal heirs of Mange Ram i.e. half portion of the property bearing no. 1258/2 as mentioned above.
(4) also award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relevant Facts as stated in the written statement of the defendant no.1 are as follows:-
2 That the present suit is an abuse of process of law as the same is based on false and frivolous allegations which are false even to the knowledge of the plaintiff and are contrary to true and correct facts.
Therefore, present suit is not maintainable. The suit filed by the plaintiff is CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 6/38 barred by provisions of Order II rule 2 of CPC because before filing the present suit, plaintiff had also filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction which was transferred to this court. In that suit plaintiff has alleged that sale deed in question executed by Sita Singh has been executed fraudulently and that his father did not sell his half share to Sita Singh. From the pleadings of the other suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1 and others which is prior in time, it is clear that at the time of filing the said suit, the plaintiff was in a position to seek declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 22.4.1964 and from the pleadings of the said suit it is also clear that the plaintiff was in a position to seek the same reliefs on the same set of facts and cause of action which form the basis of his case for which he may have been entitled in the present suit. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Suit of the plaintiff is also hit by provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act as he has no legal character or any right, title or interest in the suit property and is not entitled to the discretionary relief in question as sought in the present suit. Defendant no.1 is the legal and recorded owner of the suit property including revenue records and plaintiff is not entitled to seek any declaration against the defendant no 1. Present suit is also hit by provisions of section 31 of Specific Relief Act as the sale deed in question has been legally and validly executed by father and uncle of plaintiff. The same is not a void instrument and is binding upon the plaintiff being legal heir of the executant namely Late Hira Singh @ Hira Ram. The suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 7/38 by time. From the pleadings of the previous litigation filed by the plaintiff as mentioned above, it is clear that the father, mother and brother of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff had the knowledge of the sale deed in question since beginning. Name of the Sita Singh was mutated in the revenue records on 18.10.1965 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2 admeasuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswa on the basis of sale deed dated 22.4.1964. The sale deed was executed and registered by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff namely Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram. After 18.10.1965 to 25.8.2003 Sita Singh was shown as the recorded owner/Bhumidar of the suit land in revenue records. After 25.8.2003 defendant no.1 is shown as recorded owner/ Bhumidar. In the Naksha Mutazamin, name of the Sita Singh is shown in respect of entire land. The Land Acquisition Collector also made award no. 16/8687 in the year 1986 and assessed the compensation of the entire land admeasuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswa in the name of Sita Singh. It is relevant to point out that the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that after 18.10.1965 either name of his predecessor or name of plaintiff is shown in the records mentioned by the authority in respect of any part of land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2 of Village Nangal Dewat. Mutation of entire land measuring 1 Bigha 17 Biswah of Khasra no. 1258/2 was held on the basis of sale deed on 18.10.1965 and this fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff and his other family members since beginning. In the previous suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiff also filed a copy of revenue document issued to the plaintiff on 25.4.1986 where the fact of sale deed and CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 8/38 mutation order dated 18.10.1965 is clearly mentioned. Therefore, after 43 years of execution and registration of sale deed, plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deed. Plaintiff has not come before this court with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing true and material facts. The facts concealed by the plaintiff from the court are as follows: (1) that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff had jointly sold the suit land to Sita Singh by way of registered sale deed dated 22.4.1964. Plaintiff has also concealed the mutation in favour of Sita Singh on 15.10.1965 in the revenue records. The sale deed and mutation order were never challenged by Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram and also by the plaintiff before filing of present suit. Sita Singh during her lifetime executed a will dated 15.11.1990 in favour of defendant no.1 by virtue of which the suit property was bequeathed in favour of the defendant no.1. Sita Singh died on 17.8.2001 and after her death defendant no.1 become the absolute owner by virtue of the will. Thereafter, entire suit land was mutated in favour of defendant no.1 in case no. M-449/2002-03 dated 25.8.2003. Defendant no.1 is the lawful and recorded owner and also in actual physical possession of the suit property. After initiating the proceedings of acquisition of land bearing Khasra No. 1258 (1-17), neither the plaintiff nor any legal heirs of Late Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram had filed any claim before the LAC or any other concerned authority in regard to compensation of land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2 and in the award no. 16/86-87 Smt. Sita Singh is shown as the entitled person for compensation of the above mentioned land. But till date neither plaintiff nor any other CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 9/38 family members had challenged the said award despite having full knowledge thereof. Hon'ble High Court has specifically passed order dated 28.4.2004 in Writ Petition No. 481/1982 in which liberty was granted to the villagers of Nangal Dewat to file necessary documents within 15 days from date of such order with the Tehsildar and Tehsildar was directed to decide the issue of mutation on the basis of said documents. Plaintiff has admittedly not filed any claim before the Tehsildar with respect to the suit property despite the fact that he has filed his claim against the other piece of land situated in village Nangal Dewat. Sh. S. S. Kanawat, ADM, was appointed as Nodal Officer by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.4.2004 to decide the issue of eligibility of particular category of person. Relevant extracts of the said order are as under:-
"Mr. K. K. Kanawat, ADM is appointed as Nodal Officer for the said purpose. The Airport Authority of India will give the relevant date to him and he will prepare a list of the eligible candidates after considering the objection of different parties. If there is an issue of eligibility of a particular category of person, the list should be prepared and the eligibility will be considered by the court."
3 The plaintiff or any other legal heir of Late Hira Singh had not filed any objection with regard to land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2, Village Nangal Dewat. Thereafter, Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 481/1982 after CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 10/38 hearing the parties passed order dated 18.5.2005 and settled the guidelines/ criteria for the allotment of alternative plots and appointed Sh. A.K. Singh, ADM as Nodal Officer and directed the villagers of Nangal Dewat to approach the Nodal Officer within 15 days from the date of the order for inclusion of their names as an eligible alternative allottee or for determination of the size of the plot based on said criteria and the Nodal Officer was to take the decision as per the guidelines and criteria. Operative part of order dated 18.5.2005 is as under:-
"In view of guideline and criteria as settled for the alternative allotment, the objector/ applicants if they fall within the said guideline or criteria may approach the Nodal Officer for inclusion of their name as an eligible alternative allottee or for determination of the size if their plots based on the above criteria. The said letters, requests or applications may be filed before Nodal Officer within 15 days from today stated clearly their entitlement in terms of guidelines/ criteria. In case the Nodal Officer rejected any application for mutation or application for allotment, it would be for the concern parties to seek substantive relief in appropriate proceedings and not by any Cms in this disposal of writ petition."
4 It is clear from the order dated 18.5.2005 that Hon'ble High Court CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 11/38 had granted 15 days' time to the plaintiff to file letters, request or application before the Nodal Officer and in case Nodal Officer rejected any application for mutation or application for allotment, it was open for the concerned party to seek substantive relief in appropriate proceedings. The plaintiff or any other legal heir of Hira Singh has not approached the Nodal Officer for adjudication of their alleged claim in regard to the land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2 if they had any grievance and as such plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from this court. In pursuance of the above order, the plaintiff had filed his claim but it was against his other land situated in village Nangal Dewat. Hon'ble High Court in Civil Misc. Main No. 249/2007 vide order dated 30.5.2007 clearly held that civil court ought not to have entertained suit filed by the person who had never filed any claim before the Nodal Officer. Hon'ble High Court also held that jurisdiction of civil court also stands curtailed in the matter where land stands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It was further held that the trial court, will, in future, desist from entertaining such suits with respect to the land of village Nangal Dewat which have been the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of expansion of Airport. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court also held that various orders and judgments passed by civil court relating to the subject matter of village Nangal Dewat were passed without jurisdiction. These facts and submissions were deliberately concealed by the plaintiff in his plaint. This Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit in view of the order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the Hon'ble High CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 12/38 Court. Till date no claim has been filed by the plaintiff before the Nodal Officer with regard to the land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2 and subject matter of the land stands acquired by award no. 16/86-87 and till date no claim has been filed by the plaintiff before the LAC relating to the subject matter and in the absence of any such claim this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Present suit is also barred under provisions of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 as the suit land is covered by the provisions of said Act. Admittedly, plaintiff is not a recorded Bhumidar of the suit land and it is settled law that a person who is not a Bhumidar has no right to file a suit for injunction before a civil court against the recorded Bhumidar. Under the garb of present suit plaintiff is seeking the relief of Bhumidari rights which is not permissible. Before seeking the relief of declaration and injunction, plaintiff is required to challenge the Bhumidari rights of defendant no.1 and after getting the Bhumidari rights, the plaintiff could have filed the present suit. The suit land has been acquired under Land Acquisition Act and this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. After acquisition, neither the revenue court nor the civil court have any jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. After making of the award no. 16/86-87 plaintiff has no right to challenge the title of Sita Singh before this court. The only remedy available to the plaintiff was to file a claim under section 30-31 of Land Acquisition Act and if the concerned LAC found that there is some genuine dispute with regard to the title of the land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2 then he could have forwarded the same to CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 13/38 the concerned LAC Tribunal. Plaintiff has never challenged the survey report carried out in the year 1972 before the appropriate forum where Smt. Sita Singh is shown as a Bhumidar of the land in question and in absence of the same the said report has become final qua the plaintiff. Eligibility of plaintiff for alternative plot allotted in lieu of land bearing Khasra No. 1258/2 cannot be decided in the present suit as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had specifically ordered vide order dated 28.4.2004 that relief was granted to the parties to file necessary documents within 15 days with the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar was to decide the issue of mutation. Operative part of order dated 28.4.2004 is reproduced as under:-
"Leave and liberty is granted to the parties to file the necessary documents within 15 days from today with the Tehsildar, failing which no opportunity shall be granted to the parties and the Tehsildar will decide the issue on the basis of the documents on record".
5 No objections were filed either by the plaintiff or any other legal heirs of Hira Singh with respect to the suit property i.e. land comprising khasra no 1258/2, despite the fact that they had also filed their claim in respect of other lands situated in village Nangal Dewat. 6 After making of the award number 16/86-87, plaintiff has no right to challenge the title of Sita Singh before this court. The only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a claim under sections 30-31 of land CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 14/38 acquisition act and if the concerned land acquisition collector found that there is some genuine dispute with the title of the land bearing khasra number 1258, then he would forward the same to the concerned land acquisition Tribunal. After passing of the above-mentioned award, plaintiff has no right to challenge the title of Sita Singh in the present case and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case. Plaintiff has never challenged the survey report carried out in 1972 at any point of time before the appropriate forum. In the survey report, Smt. Sita Singh has been shown as the owner / bhumidhar of the land bearing khasra number 1258/2 and in the absence of any challenge to the same, the said report has become final. Eligibility of the plaintiff for alternative plot cannot be decided in the present suit. The Honourable High Court of Delhi has specifically ordered in order dated 20 April 2004 passed in writ petition civil number 481/1982 that leave/liberty was granted to the parties to file necessary documents within 15 days from the order and the tehsildar was to decide the issue of mutation on the basis of the documents on record.
7 The plaintiff or any other legal heirs of late Hira Singh did not file any objection with respect to the land in question before the tehsildar despite the fact that they had filed a claim with respect to some other land situated in the same village. The plaintiff also failed to file any objection before Shri S.S. Kanawat, ADM/nodal officer despite the order of Honourable High Court of Delhi. Subsequently, Honourable High Court had also pointed Shri A.K. Singh as a nodal officer on November 1 st and allowed CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 15/38 the villagers directly to approach the said nodal officer within 15 days for inclusion of their names as eligible alternative allottee for the determination of the size of the plot based on the criteria. The plaintiff failed to approach there also. In case the nodal officer rejected any claim of any plaintiff, it was for the concerned party to seek substantive relief before the appropriate forum. Plaintiff has not approached the concerned officer for adjudication of the claim. Honourable High Court in civil miscellaneous main number 249/2007 vide order dated 30th May 2007 clearly held that the civil court ought not to have entertained suits filed by the persons who never filed a claim before the nodal officer.
8 Following issues were framed after completion of pleadings. 1 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation the sale deed having been executed in the year 1964? OPD-1 2 Whether the plaintiff has no right title or interest in the property in question as it was sold in the year 1964 to Smt Sita Singh, the predecessor in interest of the defendant number 1 which fact has been concealed from the court and the suit is hit by the provisions of section 34 of specific relief act ? OPD-1 3 Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by provisions of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms act? OPD-1 4 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction in view of the valuation by the DDA at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000 per sq meter and total value of the suit property CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 16/38 being more than Rs. 20 crores? OPD-1 5 Whether the compromise dated 30/01/1990 does not create any right in favour of the plaintiff being hit by provisions of section 17(2) of the registration act? OPD-1 6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of cancellation of the sale deed 22/04/64 as asked for in the plaint? OPP 7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration asked for in the plaint? OPP 8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as asked for in the plaint? OPP 9 Relief 9 Following evidence was led after completion of pleadings by the plaintiff as well as defendant no.1. There is another connected case filed by the plaintiff i.e. the preceding case no. 14268/16 (Old Civil Case no. 330/15) in which the plaintiff and defendant no.1 are the same but in the present case, defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte right from the beginning as he failed to put in his appearance or file any written statement. Evidence was led only by the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in the present case. Evidence led by the plaintiff is almost identical to that of the previous case no. 14268/16 (Old Civil Case no. 330/15) and no new relevant fact has been added or subtracted in the present case in relation to the previous abovementioned case except for the additional relief of cancellation of sale CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 17/38 deed dated 22.04.1964 which the plaintiff has sought in addition to the other reliefs sought by him in the previous case also.
10 Plaintiff examined himself by way of evidence affidavit exhibit PW 1/A. In his evidence affidavit he deposed on exactly the same lines as that of his plaint and no new material fact was added or subtracted therefrom. He relied upon the following documents:-
1 Copy of khatauni for the year 1964-65 and its Hindi Translation are Mark A & Mark B (later on defendant did not dispute the said documents and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2). 2 Copy of compromise recorded in Suit no. 246/1989 Mark C. 3 Copy of order of said suit Mark D 4 Copy of assignment deed dated 02.05.2001 Mark E 5 Copy of application having specimen signature of father of the plaintiff Sh. Hira Ram is Mark F (allowed to be exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 only for the purposes of identification of this document). 6 Copy of alleged sale deed is Mark G 7 Portion Mark A to A-1 in para no.2, portion Mark B to B-1 in para no.7, portion Mark C to C-1 in para no.11 of affidavit Ex.PW1/A were stated to be beyond pleadings. Document Mark F is in Urdu language without any copy of translation.
His cross examination is as follows:-
11 He deposed that he was unemployed since beginning and is 10 th standard pass. It is correct that in prayer no.3 he has only sought the CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 18/38 declaration in respect of plot no.13 and has not mentioned about plot no. B-
95. He deposed that it is correct that khatauni Ex.PW1/1 was in his possession since 25.04.1986. Previously his mother had obtained the same and filed it in court of Sh. R.S Arya, Ld. Civil Judge and obtained the said document and its translation Ex.PW1/2 from the file of his mother. He deposed that it is correct that khatauni Ex.PW1/1 reflects that the land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 was sold by Sh. Ghasi Ram and other in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and same was also mutated in her favour on 18.10.1965 as reflected at point X. He deposed that the sale deed dated 22.04.1964 is a forgery and the possession of suit property was not transferred. Rest of his cross examination is exactly the same as is recorded in the previous suit no. 14268/16 (Old Civil Case no. 330/15).
12 Thereafter, plaintiff examined Mr. Mahavir Master by way of evidence affidavit. PW2 Mr Mahavir Singh was cross examined also. In his evidence affidavit, he deposed as follows:-
13 He deposed that he knows the plaintiff Baljeet Singh and his family as well as his brother Mange Ram as they were permanent residents of village Nangal Dewat. He deposed that Sh. Baljeet Singh and Sh. Mange Ram were in possession of the house built on half portion of khasra no. 1258/1/2, Nangal Dewat. He deposed that Hira Ram and his brother Ghasi Ram were owners to the extent of half share each in plot no. 1258/1/2 situated in Village Nangal Dewat. That Sh. Ghasi Ram sold his half share to Smt. Sita Singh which was later on transferred to Sh. Iqbal Singh. He CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 19/38 deposed that Sh. Ghasi Ram had transferred his possession of half share of plot no. 1258/1/2 to Smt. Sita Singh, remaining half share belonging to Hira Ram was in possession of Mange Ram and Baljeet. He deposed that Iqbal Singh wrongly claimed ownership of entire plot of khasra no. 1258/1/2. He deposed that a complaint dated 12.11.2009 was made to Nodal officer, EDM, South West, Kapashera, New Delhi by Nangal Dewat Vikas Samiti against allotment of plot no. B-95 which is also signed by him. He deposed that Sh. Iqbal Singh has no right to the allotment of the entire plot. He was cross examined. His evidence was tendered in both the cases i.e suit no. 330/15 and 331/15. Relevant extracts of his cross examination are as follows:-
14 He deposed that he was working as a Secretary, Nangal Dewat Vikas Samiti in 2009. The Samiti had made a complaint with regard to plot no. B-95 which is Mark A and copy of same is already on record. During his cross examination, he deposed that Sh. Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram had possessed approximately 350 bighas in village Nangal Dewat and they had also got three residential houses each and one plot as per his knowledge. He is not aware that both Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram had sold all their properties except their two houses situated in Lal Dora abadi of village Nangal Dewat. He deposed that his mother and sister have sold their properties but he does not know to whom they were sold. He deposed that he could not tell as to when and from whom he came to know that the property bearing khasra no. 1258/2, Nangal Dewat were sold to Smt. Sita Singh but this knowledge CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 20/38 came to him from the villagers. He deposed that his house is adjacent to that of residence of plaintiff and Sh. Mange Ram. He deposed that he is not aware that in 1964 both Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram sold their entire plot bearing khasra no. 1258/2 to Smt. Sita Singh.
15 PW3 Jai Kumar, Judicial Assistant, Record Room Civil was examined but not cross examined. His testimony is not material to decide the issues of the case.
16 Testimony of PW4 Sh. Manoj Gupta is also not relevant to the issues of the case.
17 Testimony of PW5 is also not relevant.
18 Thereafter, Sh. Inder Singh Dahiya, advocate was examined as the next plaintiff witness and he was wrongly labeled as PW5. He deposed that a suit no. 246/1989 titled as Ghasi Ram & Ors. Vs Shish Pal & Ors. was filed by him on behalf of the plaintiff. Sh. P.S. Sharma advocate was appointed as local commissioner and he was the attorney on record/counsel for the plaintiffs in that suit. He deposed that he was present at the time of inspection proceedings on 30.05.1989 and his signatures are at Point A on inspection report Mark R. 19 Thereafter, defendant examined himself by way of evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. In his evidence affidavit, he deposed on the same lines as that of his written statement. Copy of sale deed dated 22.04.1964 was exhibited. Khatoni for the year 1964-65 issued on 25.04.1986 already on record as Ex.PW-1/1 was also referred to. He deposed that the Hon'ble CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 21/38 High Court of Delhi in CWP no. 5258/2003 titled as Iqbal Singh vs International Airport authority of India & Anr. passed an order dated 05.11.2003 directing that the petitioner Iqbal Singh is liable to be included in the draw of lots in view of the directions passed vide order dated 29.10.2003 in CWP No. 481/1982. That the Hon'ble high Court in CM (Main) no. 249/2007 vide order dated 30.05.2007 clearly held that the civil court ought not to have entertained suits filed by the persons who have never filed a claim before the Nodal Officer. Hon'ble High Court also held that jurisdiction of the civil court already stands curtailed in the matter where land stands acquired under Land Acquisition Act. It was further held that the trial court will in future desist from entertaining such suits relating to land of village Nangal Dewat which have been the subject matter of acquisition for the purposes of airport extension. He deposed that from the pleadings of the present suit as well as the successive suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant no.1, it is clear that at the time of filing the said suit, plaintiff was in a position to seek the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 22.04.1964. The present suit is also barred by limitation. From the pleadings of the previous litigations filed by the plaintiff, it is clear that the father, mother and brother of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff had clear knowledge of the sale deed since the beginning. Land Acquisition Collector made the award no. 16/86-87 in 1986 and assessed the compensation of the entire suit land in the name of Smt. Sita Singh. In the present suit, plaintiff has also filed a copy of the revenue document issued to the plaintiff on CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 22/38 25.04.1986 Ex.PW-1/1-2 where the fact of sale deed under challenge and the mutation order dated 18.10.1965 is clearly mentioned. Therefore, plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deed after 43 years of execution and registration of the same. Suit filed by the plaintiff is also barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 as the suit land was governed by the provisions of the said act and admittedly the plaintiff is not a recorded bhumidar of the suit land. In the garb of present suit, plaintiff is also seeking bhumidari rights of the suit land which is not permissible. Since defendant no.1 deponent is the legal and recorded owner/bhumidar of the suit property, therefore, plaintiff has no locus standi or right to seek any declaration and injunction against the deponent. Till date plaintiff has not challenged the bhumidari rights of the deponent. Before seeking the relief of declaration and injunction, plaintiff is required to challenge the bhumidari of the deponent and after getting bhumidari rights in his favour, plaintiff can seek the relief of declaration and injunction against the deponent. Plaintiff has no locus to challenge the legality and validity of sale deed dated 22.04.1964 Ex. DW-1/1 and the Will dated 15.11.1990 Ex. DW-1/7 executed by Smt. Sita Singh in favour of the deponent. Plaintiff is neither a blood relation of Smt. Sita Singh nor has any other relation with her in any manner which may confer any right in his favour in respect of the estate left behind by late Smt. Sita Singh. After acquisition of the suit land, neither the revenue court nor the civil court has any jurisdiction over the subject matter. Only remedy available with the plaintiff was to file a claim under Section 30/31 of CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 23/38 Land Acquisition Act. Alleged compromise dated 30.01.1990 is hit by provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act. It is submitted that the alleged order dated 30.01.1990 creates a right in favour of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff and in the absence of registration of the same, this court cannot look into and rely upon the same. The legal heirs of late Sh. Mange Ram son of late Sh. Hira Singh i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Mange Ram, Pradeep and Mahipal sons of late Sh. Mange Ram also filed an appeal no. 28/05 before the Deputy Commissioner, South West, Delhi in which they challenged the mutation order dated 25.08.2003. Said appeal was dismissed on 31.08.2005 and the said dismissal has not been challenged before any authority or court. Therefore, the mutation order dated 31.08.2005 has become final and plaintiff has no right to challenge the same. Certified copy of abovementioned order dated 31.08.2005 is Ex. DW-1/13. Till 31.07.2007 when the Land Acquisition Collector took possession of the suit land, the same was in possession of the deponent. Copy of Ration card of deponent at the address of the suit property is on record and is Ex. DW- 1/14. The property was also assessed by the MCD for house tax in the name of deponent. Due to delay in handing over the possession of plot no. B-95 in lieu of the suit land, the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Project division also gave an amount of Rs.51,000/- as rent by issuing a cheque dated 13.08.2007 in favour of the deponent. Copy of cheque is Mark B. 20 DW1 was cross examined and relevant extracts of his cross examination are as follows:-
CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 24/38 21 He deposed that Smt. Sita Singh executed the Will in his favour
as he had extended several benefits and granted many favours to late Smt. Sita Singh for a long time before her death and also because he was very kind to late Smt. Sita Singh during her life time as several tragedies had befallen her during her life time. He deposed that he has placed on record sale deed, naksha muntazamin, survey report and khatoni that shows that Smt. Sita Singh was in possession of the entire suit land bearing khasra no. 1258/2, village Nangal Dewat, Delhi. The copy of writ petition filed by Airport Authority of India vs DDA & Ors. is Mark E. Rest of his cross examination is not fruitful to the case of the plaintiff. Numerous suggestions have been given by counsel for the plaintiff suggesting that the witness has committed many illegalities and has illegally grabbed the suit plot from the plaintiff and all these suggestions were clearly denied by the witness defendant no.1.
22 Thereafter, Sh. Ajay Yadav, Assistant Zonal Inspector was examined as DW2. He deposed that he is a summoned witness and that no record pertaining to village Nangal Dewat was available in his office. He deposed that it is correct that no villagers of village Nangal Dewat used to pay house tax.
23 Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav was examined as DW3. He deposed that he is a summoned witness and had brought Will dated 15.11.1990 Ex. DW- 1/7 registered in their office on 12.05.2003. His cross examination is not useful for deciding any of the issues that were framed.
CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 25/38 24 Thereafter, Mr. Ajay Yadav was examined as DW4. He was not cross examined and his testimony is also not relevant. 25 Thereafter, Mr. Devendra Kumar was examined as DW5. His evidence also is not relevant.
26 Thereafter, Sh. Kailash Kumar, Kanungo at LAC Branch, District New Delhi was examined as DW6. His evidence also is not relevant for deciding the issues.
27 Thereafter, Sh. Omvir Kanungo SDM, Vasant Vihar was examined as DW-7. He deposed that mutation order dated 25.08.2003 has been passed on the basis of Will in favour of Iqbal Singh. He has no personal knowledge as to who was present at the time of mutation. 28 Thereafter, Sh. Dharmender Dagar was examined as DW8. He deposed that the Kanungo LAC has attested the document Ex. DW-8/1 and Ex. DW-8/2 which are the survey report of the year 1972 and copy of naksha muntazamin respectively. He deposed that it is correct that the survey report is in Urdu language and he was unable to tell as to who is the owner of the said khasra number.
29 Thereafter Mr. N.S Bhati was examined as DW9. He is also a summoned witness and had brought the record under the rehabilitation scheme which is Ex. DW-9/1. His cross examination also does not throw any light upon the issues to be decided by the court.
30 Thereafter Mr. Sushil Gupta was examined as DW10. He was examined by way of evidence affidavit Ex. DW-10/A. He relied upon CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 26/38 exhibited document Ex. DW-1/7 dated 09.09.2018. He deposed that he knew and met Iqbal Singh for the first time at residence of Smt. Sita Singh in 1985-86. He deposed that except for the Will, no other documents were signed by Smt. Sita Singh in his presence. Sher Singh was present at the house of Smt. Sita Singh when they reached there. His cross examination also does not throw any light on any of the issues to be decided by the court. 31 Thereafter, Mr. R.C Meena was examined as D3W1 by way of evidence affidavit Ex.D3W-1/A. His evidence also is not relevant for deciding the issues at hand.
32 All the pleadings of this case have already been discussed above. On 13 October 2015, learned predecessor of this court framed the following issue, "whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try this matter in this court"? The learned predecessor decided that the above issue shall also take care of the point raised by defendant number 1 in the application under order 7 rule 11 CPC. Thereafter, through order dated 11 January 2016, the submissions upon the preliminary issue were considered by the court and after citing the decision of the Honourable High Court of Delhi in the case of "Airport authority of India versus Karan Singh and others reported as 2007 (volume 6) , AD Delhi, it was specifically held that any challenge to the order of the nodal officer/claim/representation has to be made before the Honourable Delhi High Court and in para number 41 of the same judgement, Honourable High Court of Delhi had been very categorical in observing that in case of any dispute with regard to the title, based upon the will, the CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 27/38 competent court i.e. civil court would have the jurisdiction to try the same and till such time the civil court decides the rights of the parties on the basis of the will, the allotment by the nodal officer is required to be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, by way of a reasoned order, the learned predecessor, held that under no circumstances can the defendants object on the ground of jurisdiction since the civil court, i.e. this court will have the jurisdiction to try the suit to the limited extent of determination of title of the parties based upon the alleged impugned will, which jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted in terms of the observations made by the Honourable Delhi High Court in para number 41 of the judgement of the case of Airport Authority of India cited above.
33 Thereafter, the aggrieved party i.e. defendant number 1 went in revision before the Honourable High Court itself, but the same was also dismissed by the Honourable High Court again citing the judgement of Honourable High Court itself titled as Airport Authority of India versus Karan Singh and others 2007 volume 6 AD, Delhi. The Honourable High Court, categorically held through its order dated 2nd may 2016 that the civil court would have the jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by the plaintiff. The said revision petition of defendant number 1 was dismissed with costs by Honourable High Court.
Issue no 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation, the sale deed having been executed in the year 1964? OPD-1 34 As per the contents of the registered sale deed, the suit property CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 28/38 was sold by the admitted owners Hira Singh and Ghasi Ram both sons of Bakhtawar Singh in the year 1964 in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and the mutation in her favour in revenue records was made by the authorities in 1965. This land alongwith other land of village Nangal Dewat was acquired by the govt under a notification under sections 4 and 6 in 1972 and the award in respect of this land was made and published in the year 1986. The plaintiff had already achieved the age of majority in 1986 when this award was published and the publication of this award in newspapers is a sufficient notice to all concerned and as per the award Smt. Sita Singh was the owner of this property in the revenue records. Moreover, in writ petition number 481/1982 titled as Daryao Singh and others versus UOI wherein plaintiff was also a party as petitioner no 234, all particulars and relevant documents relating to ownership of land were annexed by the petitioner and as per the revenue records annexed, Smt. Sita Singh was the owner of this land under khasra number 1258/2. The plaintiff never challenged this sale deed either after the publication of this award or at the time of this writ petition for which as per the limitation act, the time period for challenging the sale deed was 3 yrs from the date of knowledge. In this suit the plaintiff has challenged the sale deed for the first time and failed to challenge the sale deed in the previous suit even though the whole bundle of facts on which the cause of action is based were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff when he filed the previous suit and as such the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.
CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 29/38 Issue number 2 : Whether the plaintiff has no right title or interest in the property in question as it was sold in the year 1964 to Smt Sita Singh, the predecessor in interest of the defendant number 1 which fact has been concealed from the court and the suit is hit by the provisions of section 34 of specific relief act ? OPD-1 35 The plaintiff has no right title or interest in the property in question and this property was already sold in the year 1964 to Smt. Sita Singh, the predecessor in interest of the defendant number 1. The sale deed registered in the year 1964 and also the mutation in the name of Smt. Sita Singh in the year 1965 was never challenged within the period of limitation by the plaintiff before any appropriate forum. The ownership claimed by the plaintiff by virtue of the compromise dated 30/01/1990 is full of ambiguities. The alleged compromise was not a court decree. The same was dismissed as withdrawn. The appropriate course for the party then was to seek cancellation of the sale deed under specific relief act which the plaintiff never did. The alleged compromise was never registered under registration act and has no force in the eyes of law. In the above facts the plaintiff was never entitled for any relief under the provisions of the section 34 of the specific relief act which is discretionary relief and plaintiff's assertions that he came to know about the allotment of the disputed plot in the name of defendant number 1 immediately before filing the present suit are totally incorrect and not capable of belief. It appears that the plaintiff under the garb of the alleged compromise dated 30/01/1990 which itself is full of CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 30/38 ambiguities and unworthy of credit is trying to mislead the court that he had no knowledge of the factum of sale and ownership of the disputed land. Issue no 3 : Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by provisions of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms act? OPD-1 36 Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act says as follows:
Cognizance of suits, etc, under this Act. - (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall , notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof.
(2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie form an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule afore-
said.
(3) An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a court mentioned in column 3 to the court or authority mentioned in column 8 thereof.
(4) A second appeal shall lie from the final order passed in an appeal under sub section (3) to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 9 of the Schedule aforesaid..
COMMENTS
(i) The Act has created a whole hierarchy of courts for the determination of the question relating to rights and liabilities regarding land. In such an event CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 31/38 and even on a plain reading of Section 185 the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted by implication. Kacheru v.Risal Singh ILR (1970 11-Delhi Pg.29) Gaon Sabha of Lado sarai versus Jage Ram ILR (973) 1 Delhi Page 984.
(ii) Section 185(1) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Plaintiff claiming in sub- stance bhumidhari right and challenging vesting order in consequence - such a suit cannot be brought in Civil Court. In this case the Plaintiff, claim in substance was that he had bhumidari rights in the suit land and the vesting order was contrary to law, the court held that such a suit could not be brought in the Civil Courts by virtue of Section 185(1) of the Act.
(a) The Act was a complete code and the civil court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 185(1) of the Act to entertain a suit in which the plaintiff al- leges that he is the proprietor of the suit land and asks for declaration that he is entitled to bhumidhari rights in respect of the said land.
37 As per the provisions of the Delhi land reforms act and the spe- cific relief act, the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff was to seek the relief of cancellation of sale deed which was registered in favour of Sita Singh and thereafter he should have approached the revenue court within the time pe- riod prescribed for mutation in his favour. For bhumidari rights and mutation the exclusive jurisdiction lies before the revenue courts as per provisions of section 185 of Delhi land reforms act. And as such the plaintiff ousted him- self from the relief of mutation in his favour which could have entitled him CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 32/38 for the allotment of the plot under the welfare scheme and that too only if the plaintiff would have followed the scheme laid down by hon'ble High Court in writ petition number 481/82 titled as Daryao Singh and others versus UOI.
Issue no 4 : whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction in view of the valuation by the DDA at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000 per sq meter and total value of the suit property being more than Rs. 20 crores? (OPD-1) 38 The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant number 1 Iqbal Singh. But he has failed to prove this issue. The claim of the plaintiff originally rested upon the plot bearing khasra no 1258/2 village nangal dewat which is an agricultural land. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the plaintiff should be asked to pay the court fees on the value of the suit plot allotted in lieu of this land as it was being allotted under rehabilitation scheme which was a welfare scheme and the villagers who were entitled in lieu thereof were not asked for the payment at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per sq meter provided the same was as per their entitlement under the category made by the Airport Authority and approved by the Hon'ble Delhi Highcourt. Therefore, in light of above mentioned, the defendant no 1 has failed to prove this issue.
Issue no 5 : whether the compromise dated 30/01/1990 does not create any right in favour of the plaintiff being hit by provisions of section CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 33/38 17(2) of the registration act? OPD-1 Section 17 of the Registration Act is as follows:- Documents of which Registration is compulsory:--(1) The following documents shall be regis- tered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No.XVI of 1864, or the Pakistan Registration Act, 1866, or the Pakistan Registration Act, 1871, or the Pakistan Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:--
(a) Instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and up-
wards, to or in immovable property;
Explanation.--In the case of an assignment of a mortgage the consideration for the deed of assignment shall be deemed to be the value for registration;
(c) non-testamentary instruments other than the acknowledgment of a receipt or payment made in respect of any transaction to which an instrument regis- tered under clause (o) relates Added ibid which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assign- ment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d) lease of immovable property from year to year; or for any term exceed- ing on year, or reserving a yearly rent:
Provided that the Provincial Government may, by order publish in the offi- cial Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any eased exe- cuted in any district, or part of a district, there terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.
CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 34/38
(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or or-
der of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:
(2) Nothing in clauses (d) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to--
(vi) any decree or order of a Court except a decree, or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding; or
39 The compromise dated 30/01/1990 is not a decree of the court as the suit in question has been dismissed as withdrawn and the alleged compromise was arrived at outside the court. No consent decree capable of being executed was obtained by the plaintiff in the alleged compromise. Plaintiff never obtained any orders from the court either for cancellation of registered sale deed existing in favour of Smt. Sita Singh nor obtained any consent decree declaring him to be owner of half portion of the suit land bearing khasra no 1258/2 village nangal dewat. By way of this alleged compromise, the plaintiff is claiming right title and interest in this suit property in the face of a registered sale deed existing in favour of Smt. Sita Singh meaning thereby that this compromise is creating right title or interest for the first time and this compromise required registration under section 17(1) of the act if the same was to be meaningful. So, this compromise has no meaning for want of registration also. This alleged compromise does not CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 35/38 create any right title or interest in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no 1 and against the plaintiff. Issue no 6 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of cancellation of the sale deed 22/04/64 as asked for in the plaint? OPP 40 The relief claimed by the plaintiff is hopelessly timebarred. The factum of sale deed was well within his knowledge in 1986 when the award was published. This fact was well within his knowledge when he became a party in writ petition no 481/1982 titled as Daryao Singh and others versus UOI being petitioner no 234. As per the revenue records annexed with this writ petition, Sita Singh was the owner of land in khasra no 1258/2. Limitation period for the cancellation of the sale deed as per articles 56 and 59 of the Limitation Act is 3 years from the date of cause of action and therefore claim of plaintiff on both counts is hopelessly time barred. Even otherwise, the claim of the plaintiff is also barred under O II R 2 CPC as the whole bundle of facts on which he is claiming the relief has already been incorporated by him in Case no. 14268/16 (old Civil Suit no 330/15) filed in 2006 which is immediately preceding the present suit. So, on the same cause of action, plaintiff should have claimed all of the reliefs including this relief of cancellation of sale deed but he failed to do so. Even otherwise, he has given no cogent evidence, to establish that the thumb impression on the sale deed are not that of his father late Shri Hira Singh. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no 7: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 36/38 asked for in the plaint? OPP 41 The plaintiff has sought the declaratory relief of declaring himself to be the owner of his respective share out of the half share in property khasra no 1258/2 Nangal Dewat and the declaration that defendant no 1 has no right title or interest qua the share of the plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed or any other document of transfer subsequent to the sale deed and a consequential decree cancelling the allotment of alternative plot no 13 in favour of defendant no1. As already discussed above as well as in the connected suit no 330/2015 at length, plaintiff has miserably failed on all accounts including the relief that he is or was ever an owner of any portion of khasra no 1258/2 Nangal Dewat at any point of time. Therefore, he is not entitled to this relief of declaration. As regards the other relief of declaration of defendant no 1, entitlement of defendant no 1 qua the suit plot is already under challenge in the writ filed by the airport authority titled as Airport Authority of India versus DDA and others no 1015/2011 and is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, this court is constrained to pass any order on the issue.
Issue no 8 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as asked for in the plaint? OPP 42 Since in view of the discussions and findings of the issues above as well as of all the issues decided in preceding connected suit no 330/2015, this court has already arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 37/38 has miserably failed to prove his ownership as well as entitlement to either the suit land or any alternative plot in view of the settlement scheme chalked out by the Hon'ble High Court, he is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for, more so in view of the fact already stated above that the issue of entitlement of defendant no 1 is already under challenge and subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court under writ petition filed by Airport Authority of India. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff. Relief:
In view of my abovementioned findings on all the issues, it is hereby held that plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for by him in the plaint. Therefore, the present suit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to RR. Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL BENIWAL BENIWAL Date: 2019.10.10 15:49:50 +0530 Announced in the open Court on 09th day of October, 2019 (SUNIL BENIWAL) ADJ-02, Central,THC/Delhi CS No. 9914/19 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh 38/38