Delhi District Court
Chander Mal vs . M/S Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 29 April, 2017
Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
05, ROOM NO. 605, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
In the matter of
Suit No.8807/16
Chander Mal .............Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Allied Realty Private Limited .............Defendants
29.04.2017
ORDER
1. By virtue of this order application under order VII R 11 CPC filed by defendant is being decided.
2. Arguments on application heard.
3. In the application under disposal defendant has Suit No.8807/16 Page 1 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors prayed for rejection of plaint filed by the plaintiff with exemplary costs and further relief of grant the liberty to file written statement.
4. In the application it is stated by defendant that plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 04.08.2006 declaring the plaintiff to be absolute owner of the agricultural land admeasuring 9 bigha 11 biswas comprised in Khasra no.1069 (911), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Fatehpur, Beri Tehsil, Hauz Khas, (Mehrauli), New Delhi (hereinfafter referred to as suit property) and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the suit land.
5. It is further stated that plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that plaintiff is absolute owner and in possession of the suit land. It is further stated that there is no concept of owner qua agriculture land and claim of the plaintiff falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities and jurisdiction of civil courts is barred by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 by Suit No.8807/16 Page 2 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors virtue of Section 185 r/w Schedule I (Column 3 & 7) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
6. It is further stated that Sale Deed has been validly registered in the office of the Sub RegistrarV, Mehrauli and presence of plaintiff's duly constituted attorney i.e. Mr.Mahender, is duly incorporated in the Sale Deed who has received the sale consideration. It is further stated that registered document is the proof of genuineness of its contents and execution thereof. It is further stated that plaintiff has not challenged the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of Mr.Mahender son of Mr.Gyan Chand resident of Village Asola, New Delhi and has merely challenged that registration could not have been done by him, therefore, the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. It is further stated that initially plaintiff made Sub RegistrarV party to the suit as defendant no.2 but then gave away his claim against Sub RegistrarV, Mehrauli and as such he was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 03.12.2014.
Suit No.8807/16 Page 3 of 21Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
7. It is further stated that plaintiff obtained NOC under the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 for sale of suit land in favour of defendant on 01.07.2006 which clearly establishes the intent of the plaintiff to sell the suit land and there is no challenge to the same too.
8. It is further stated that suit land was mutated in favour of defendant initially and subsequently in favour of three successors. Defendant vide sale deed dated 09.04.2007 had sold portion of suit land measuring 5 bigha & 13 biswas to M/s Maestro Estates Pvt. Ltd. for consideration of Rs.1,60,20,000/. It is further stated that defendant vide sale deed dated 09.04.2007 had sold portion of suit land measuring 3 bigha & 10 biswas to M/s Sprouting Properties Pvt Ltd for consideration of Rs.1,60,20,000/ and further had sold portion of suit land measuring 8 biswas to M/s Monga Properties Private Limited for consideration of Rs.1,44,34,000/.
9. It is further stated that defendant had taken over actual and physical possession of the suit land from the date of Suit No.8807/16 Page 4 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors execution of sale deed i.e. 4.8.2006 and remained in possession of the suit land till the date of subsequent transfer of the suit land to three bonafide transferees. It is further stated that possession of defendant was duly recorded under the revenue records as such it is evident that factum of initial possession of defendant and subsequent transfer of suit land are within the knowledge of plaintiff.
10. It is further stated that revenue records i.e. Khatauni (Form P6) and Khasra Girdawari (Form P4) also shows that suit land was sold by the plaintiff to defendant and thereafter by defendant to subsequent successors in interest.
11. It is further stated that plaintiff by way of present suit has challenged the revenue record which can only be made before Revenue Authorities under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is further stated that by virtue of registration of sale deed it becomes an Additional BookI document and is presumed to be in knowledge of general public and plaintiff has come to court after lapse of more than 8 years from execution Suit No.8807/16 Page 5 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors of sale deed. Under such circumstances it is apparent that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands.
12. It is further stated that plaintiff has not filed any complaint against the defendant or its agents for dispossession or interference in possession of the plaintiff in suit land. It is further stated that suit filed by the plaintiff involves issues which need to be determined by Revenue Court under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 as such the suit is barred by law and is liable to be rejected.
REPLY OF PLAINTIFF TO APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII R 11 CPC
13. In reply to the application plaintiff has denied all the avernments made in the application. It is stated that application under order VII R 11 CPC is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that plaintiff has sought cancellation of sale deed on the basis of fraud played by defendants.
14. It is further stated that revenue court is competent to Suit No.8807/16 Page 6 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors decide issues as raised in the plaint as firstly it does not have jurisdiction to go into such issues and the jurisdiction of revenue court being limited as the relief claimed in the present suit is outside the purview of Schedule I and thus no bar under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act will apply.
15. It is further stated that present application is nothing but an attempt to delay the adjudication of the proceedings in the suit as defendant has no valid defence available to justify the fraudulent sale deed. It is further stated that defendant was served on 03.02.15 as such thirty days time expired on 04.03.15 and further 90 days period expired on 04.05.2015.
16. It is further stated that Mr.Mahinder was never appointed as attorney and no power of attorney was ever executed which fact is evident from the reply dated 18.11.14. As such the fraud was perpetuated against the plaintiff by defendant in procuring fraudulent sale deed, the plaintiff on gaining knowledge about the fraud was constrained to file the Suit No.8807/16 Page 7 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors present suit. It is further stated that defendant fraudulently executed sale deed in his favour which is evident from the fact that till October, 2014 the defendant never disturbed the possession of the plaintiff. It is denied that his claim falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities and jurisdiction of civil courts is barred by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is stated that such a bar is not applicable in case where cancellation of sale deed has been sought and fraud has to be investigated. It is further stated that plaintiff has never delegated any person including Mahinder with any authority or attorney. The alleged sale deed is a sham document which has been stated more particularly in para 10 of the plaint. It is further stated that Registrar conducts an enquiry as to the identity of the persons appearing before him before effecting the registration of document but no such enquiry was undertaken which fact is evident from the reply dated 18.11.04 received from the office of SubRegistrar, Pehowa, Haryana who has informed the plaintiff that no such record is available with it concerning the alleged power of attorney.
Suit No.8807/16 Page 8 of 21Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
17. It is further stated that plaintiff has never executed any power of attorney, the sale deed purportedly executed in favour of defendant on the basis of a nonexistent document is nothing but a sham document. As such no right flows from the purported sale deed in favour of the defendant. It is further stated that Court has time and gain held that official respondents need not to be made party to the proceedings as they can always be summoned in case any clarification or evidence is required from such official respondents. It is further stated that plaintiff has never applied for any NOC and had never any intention to sell the suit property. It is further stated that purported sale deed was never executed by the plaintiff and plaintiff was never dispossessed from the physical possession of the suit property. It is further stated that entry of defendant in revenue record was never within the knowledge of plaintiff. It is further stated that being sale deed a sham document as a consequence thereof all subsequent entries and sale deed will be of no consequence. It is further stated that mere registration of sale deed in additional book no.1 can in no manner be a presumption to be in knowledge of general public.
Suit No.8807/16 Page 9 of 21Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
18. It is further stated that defendant has taken legal recourse of not filing the written statement despite expiry of statutory period of 90 days under the garb of present application on frivolous grounds as such the right to file written statement is liable to be closed and the suit be decreed in terms of Order VIII R 10 CPC.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT/APPLICANT:
19. Ld. Senior Counsel for defendant filed written submissions reiterating on the lines of application. It is stated that suit property being agricultural land, Delhi Land Reforms Act comes into play. Therefore, no concept of ownership and the plaintiff can only claim bhumidari rights. Revenue assistant is only authority to adjudicate as per Section 11 r/w Entry 4 of Schedule I r/w Sec.185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is further stated that prayer of declaration of bhumidari rights which right under Delhi Land Reforms Act this Court cannot decide. It is further stated that procedure of cancellation is covered u/s 185 r/w 186 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Plaintiff has to file a Suit No.8807/16 Page 10 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors comprehensive suit before revenue assistant who would frame issue on title and validity of sale deed and refer the same to civil court, which court after adjudicating would refer back the reference to revenue assistant for his decision on mefits. It is further stated that suit is not maintainable u/s 34 of Specific Relief Act because the plaintiff is not seeking cancellation of mutation which is a consequencial relief. Otherwise also prayer of cancellation of mutation can only be granted by revenue assistant u/s 64 of Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. It is further stated that the suit is barred under the law of limitation as the plaintiff approached court after 8 years of execution of sale deed dt.4.8.06. It is stated that suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Mahender s/o Gyan Chand who is attorney of the plaintiff. In support of his contention ld. Senior Counsel for defendant has relied upon following judgments
(i) 'Gaon Sabha & Another Vs. Nathi & Ors', (2004) 12 SCC 555
(ii) 'Hatti Vs. Sunder singh', (1970) 2 SCC 841
(iii) Ram Niwas Vs. Pitamber Singh & Ors, (2008) 102 DRJ 81(DB) Suit No.8807/16 Page 11 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
(iv) Shera Vs. Financial Commissioner', W.P.(Civil) 3205 of 1982
(v) Kalawati Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2009)108 DRJ 251(DB)
(vi) Government of Andhra Pradesh & Another Vs. Satyanarayan Rao, (2000) 4SCC 262.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF PLAINTIFF:
20. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff filed written submissions stating that the defendant has not urged or even dealt with the issue which the plaintiff has raised in the plaint interalia regarding the execution of sale deed in question by perpetrating fraud. It is not in dispute that revenue court is not the court empowered to cancel the sale deed as such entire argument is misplaced and devoid of merits. It is further stated that plaintiff is not seeking bhumidari rights but is seeking primary relief of cancellation of sale deed. It is further stated that claim asserted is on the basis of fraud perpetrated by defendants to which neither has there been any reference nor any arguments to counter the same has been put forth. It is Suit No.8807/16 Page 12 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors further stated that plaintiff never executed POA which is evident from reply dt.18.11.14. It is further stated that fraud has been established and defendant being a beneficiary to the fraud in as much as the sale deed in question has been procured by fraud, the sale deed is liable to be cancelled. It is further stated that neither has the plaintiff sought declaration of bhumidari rights nor has any application been made to regain possession. It is further stated that plaintiff is absolute owner of suit property and he has been in continuous possession of the suit property through Sh Ajay Pal since 2001 till present date. It is further stated that in view of the same there is no cloud over title of plaintiff. It is further stated that even defendant claim their alleged title on purported POA executed by plaintiff himself, therefore, scope of plaintiff's title being under cloud does not arise. It is further stated that application under disposal is unfounded and devoid of merits. Ld.Counsel for plaintiff in support of her contentions has relied upon following judgments:
(i) Smt. Angoori Devi Vs. Charan Singh, MANU/DE/2396/2012: (ii) R.S.Kathuria Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2007)Supp.(2) Suit No.8807/16 Page 13 of 21
Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Del 115:
(iii) Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt.Seema Sethi & Ors MANU/DE/0042/2009:
(iv) Visa Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Charan Singh & Ors MANU/DE/1165/2012:
(v) Ashok Kumar & Ors Vs. Munni Devi & Ors, 188(2012) DLT 589:
(vi) Shri Ram & Anr Vs. First Additional District Judge & Ors, (2001)3SCC24.
21. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the material on record, written submissions and judgments relied upon by the parties.
22. Under Order VII R 11 CPC Court is bound to look into only the contents mentioned in the plaint but nothing beyond. As per plaint plaintiff claims to be bhoomidar of 9bigha & 11 biswa land comprised in Khasra no.1069(911), situated in Revenue Estate of Village Fatehpur Beri, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli. He has also claimed to be in possession of suit property. Plaintiff has alleged that he was threatened by the Suit No.8807/16 Page 14 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors defendant who claimed a right under a registered sale deed dated 4.8.2016 which as per plaintiff has not been executed by him. In the application defendant has stated to the effect that suit property was purchased by Mr.Mahinder who was duly constituted attorney of plaintiff. It is a case of plaintiff that Mr.Mahinder was never appointed as attorney and no POA was ever executed in his favour. In these facts, there is no cloud on the title of plaintiff over the suit property. The alleged attorney of the plaintiff who has executed sale deed in favour of defendant has been claimed to be appointed vide registered GPA dated 12.05.2006 registered not in Delhi but Pahoba, Kurukshetra, Haryana as mentioned in handwriting in typed written registered sale deed. This alleged registration of GPA is under serious doubt as information sought by plaintiff under RTI Act, on the basis of detail of this registration of GPA as mentioned in sale deed, indicates towards no such alleged registration of GPA. On these facts plaintiff has sought decree of cancellation of above mentioned sale deed and decree of declaration declaring him to be owner and in possession of suit property and for perpetual injunction for restraining the Suit No.8807/16 Page 15 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors defendant, its agents etc.from interfering in his possession over the suit property.
23. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by both the parties and I am of the view that judgments relied upon by ld. Senior Counsel for defendant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. There can be no dispute that concept of ownership and bhoomidari rights are different to eachother and pure dispute of bhoomidari right can be decided only by revenue authority. But in the case in hand there is no dispute or cloud on the bhoomidari right of plaintiff. The only material question or dispute involved in this case as to whether alleged sale deed is genuine and valid or not. As per plaint plaintiff has claimed to be in possession.
24. In view of the facts as mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff I find that the cases relied upon by ld. Counsel for plaintiff are applicable to present case. In Ashok Kumar & Ors Vs. Munni Devi & Ors, 188(2012) DLT 589, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
Suit No.8807/16 Page 16 of 21Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors "5. In my opinion, the trial court has fallen into a grave error in holding that the civil courts did not have jurisdiction in view of section 185 of the Act.
Section 185 has already been reproduced above and which section shows that the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to try such suits which are mentioned in column 2 & 3 of the Schedule I of the Act, and it is only with respect to such suits that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts will be barred. The sections and type of the suits which are mentioned in columns 2 & 3 of the Schedule I of the Act, do not cover suits such as the subject suit for declaration, injunction and for cancellation of a sale deed/power of attorney on the ground of the same having been forged and fabricated. Such causes of action/reliefs of declaration and inunction which pertain to invalidity of the title documents which are said to have been got executed on the basis of a forged and fabricated General Power of Attorney are not covered under any of the Sections under columns 2 & 3 of Schedule I and they can be thus decided by a civil court. A reference to coloumns 2 & 3 of Schedule I of the Act shows that in none of the sections or the description of suits, mentioned in coloumns 2 & 3 of the Schule I respectively, the subject suit would be convered. The only secitons which can be said ot be somewhat related to the Suit No.8807/16 Page 17 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors issues causes of actoin/reliefs in teh suit are Section 13 & 104. Seciton 13 pertains to an application to regain possession after bhumidari rights are got declared & for which period of limitation is one year from the commencement of the Act. The Act commenced in the year 1954 and the subject suit for declaration and injunction can not be said to be pertaining to Section 13 of the Act, and also because no declaration of bhumidari rights envisaged under Section 13 is in issue in the subject suit. Therefore, the subject legal proceedings are not covered under serial no.3 of the Schedule I which pertains to Section 13, being an application to regain possession. So far as the Section 104 is concerned which is the subject matter of serial No.28 of the Schedule I, the said section pertains to a declaratory suit which is filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha against a person claiming entitlement to any right to the land which is the subject matter of the Act.
Obviously, the subject suit filed by the private person is not a suit for declaration, covered by Section 104.
A reference to all other Sections which are the subject matter of column 2 of the Schedule I and the description of such suits under those sections as stated in column 3 of Schedule I shows that there is no section for filing of a suit of the nature Suit No.8807/16 Page 18 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors of the suit in question. A reference to the column 2 and the description of the sections in column 3 shows that the proceedings which are the subject matter of the Revenue Courts are those proceedings which are with respect to either delcaration of bhoomidari rights (as distinguished from inter se dispute of claim of ownership/bhumidari rights on account of transfer by title deeds/sale deeds including by forging a power of attorney), suits which are with respect to exchange of bhumidari land or for partition of a bhumidari land or suit for ejectment filed by an Asami or a suit for injunction or damage caused to a holding of a aperson etc. These suits which the Civil Courts are barred from taking cognizance of are basically suits of a bhumidar or Asami or Gaon Sabha and that too provided they are first of all the subject matter of the Sections which are stated in column2 of the Schedule I.
6. Unless the suits are in substance, the suits which fall within the Sections as stated in coloumn 2, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not barred by virtue of Section 185 of the Act. No doubt Section 186 states that where a question of title is raised in any proceeding falling under coloumn 3 of the Schedule I of the Act then such a proceedings has to be referred by the Revenue Court to a Civil Court to determine the question of Suit No.8807/16 Page 19 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors title, however, it does not mean that suits where title is in question, and which suits are not the subject matter of coloumns 2 & 3 of the Schedule I, such suits have to be filed in the Revenue Courts. In fact, it is other way round that firstly the suits must in substance be the suits essentially covered under columns 2 & 3 of the Schedule I of the Act and only thereafter if title of the land is in question then the Revenue Court will refer the issue of the title to Civil Court, however, if the suits itself are not falling under columns 2 & 3 of Schedule I, for such suits jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not barred."
25. In this case plaintiff has not specifically sought declaration of his bhumidari rights. No doubt he has mentioned word 'owner' in his prayer clause but at this stage during the disposal of an application under Order VII R 11 CPC, it cannot be opined that the prayer is infact for declaration of bhumidari rights. In view of aforesaid judgments relied upon by ld. Counsel for plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit and this suit is not barred under Delhi Land Reforms Act.
Suit No.8807/16 Page 20 of 21Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
26. Hence, application under order VII R 11 CPC filed by defendant is dismissed.
Announced in the open (ANIL KUMAR)
Court on 29.04.2017 ADJ05 (SOUTH DISTRICT)
(Order contains 21 pages) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.8807/16 Page 21 of 21
Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
(i) Smt. Angoori Devi Vs. Charan Singh, MANU/DE/2396/2012:
Para no.6 of the judgment is as follows:
"6. .......... the suits for declaration and injunction with respect to disputes of transfer of title of the lands can be decided by the civil courts.
(ii) R.S.Kathuria Vs. Union of India & Ors, (2007)Supp.(2) Del 115:
Para no.21 of the judgment is as follows:
"21........ A plain reading of Section 185 suggests that a suit the subject matter of which falls within any one or more of the entries contained in column 2 of the schedule to the said Act would only be hit by Section 185, and not otherwise. To state it differently, the said section does not impose a total bar of jurisdiction of the civil court, but only imposes a restriction on suits or other legal proceedings in respect of matter for which a specific provision is made int eh Act. Any other construction would lead to an incongruity namely there will be a vacuum in areas not covered by the Act, and the remedy before the civil court would be displaced without replacing it by alternate forums to seek remedies. Section 185 cannot be said to put a sweeping and general embargo on the jurisdiction of the civil court, in all situations.
(iii) Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt.Seema Sethi & Ors Suit No.8807/16 Page 22 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors MANU/DE/0042/2009:
Para no.4 of the judgment is as follows:
"4. The relief with respect to which the prsent suit has been filed does not find mention in Schedule I to the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Revenue Coruts under the said Act have not been empowered to grant the relief of declaration as void & cancellation of a sale deed with respect to agricultural land also or to grant the relief of injunction. From a bare reading of the plaint thus and which alone is to be seen at the stage under Order 7 R 11 CPC, the suit does not appear to be barred by Section 185 of the Act. What has to be seen is whether on a meaningful reading also, can it be said that the suit is barred by the said provision or can it be said that the plaint has been cleverly drafted and the relief in fact claimed is the relief which the Revenue Courts under Schedule 1 to the Act are entitled to grant and the jurisdiction with respect whereto of the Civil Courts/this Court is barred."
(iv) Visa Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Charan Singh & Ors MANU/DE/1165/2012:
Para no.23 of the judgment is as follows:
"23. In Mansa Ram Vs. Tilak & Anr (supra) the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an application under order VII R 11 CPC Suit No.8807/16 Page 23 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant therein was bared under the provision of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1952 and the other revenue law held that a suit seeking cancellation of general power of attorney having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and in consequence to that the sale deed having been registered by playing a fraud was maintainable and the revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the issue. It was categorically laid down that the issue of fraud and cancellation of document can only be decided by the Civil Court. It was noted that no declaration of bhoomidari rights was sought which would be a subject matter under Section 185 Delhi Land Reforms Act."
(v)Ashok Kumar & Ors Vs. Munni Devi & Ors, 188(2012) DLT 589:
Para no.5 of the judgment is as follows:
"5. In my opinion, the trial court has fallen into a grave error in holding that the civil courts did not have jurisdiction in view of section 185 of the Act. Section 185 has already been reproduced above and which section shows that the Revenue Courts have jurisdiction to try such suits which are mentioned in column 2 & 3 of the Schedule I of the Act, and it is only with respect to such suits Suit No.8807/16 Page 24 of 21 Chander Mal Vs. M/s Allied Reality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts will be barred. The sections and type of the suits which are mentioned in columns 2 & 3 of the Schedule I of the Act, do not cover suits such as the subject suit for declaration, injunction and for cancellation of a sale deed/power of attorney on the ground of the same having been forged and fabricated. Such causes of action/reliefs of declaration and inunction which pertain to invalidity of the title documents which are said to have been got executed on the basis of a forged and fabricated General Power of Attorney are not covered under any of the Sections under columns 2 & 3 of Schedule I and they can be thus decided by a civil court.Suit No.8807/16 Page 25 of 21