Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Jagat Singh & Ors vs Babu Ram & Ors on 4 May, 2019

        IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO, PO­MACT (NE),
                KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI


CS No. : 326/16

IN THE MATTER OF :­

Jagat Singh & Ors.
                                             .......... Plaintiffs

          Vs.

Babu Ram & Ors.                             ..........Defendants


Date of Institution of Suit     : 25.04.2011
Date of Arguments               : 19.02.2019, 05.03.2019, 26.03.2019,
                                  10.04.2019 and 24.04.2019
Date of Order                   : 04.05.2019

                          JUDGMENT

Case of Plaintiffs :­

1. In terms of the case of plaintiffs, Likhi S/o Fatwa was the bhumidar of land forming part of Khasra no. 28/16/1 (3­18), 29/11 (3­11), 20/2 (1­10), 42/4/2 (0­7), 5/2 (3­7) and 277 (2­1) measuring 14 bighas and 4 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi.

2. Likhi died in year 1959 and was survived only by his wife Smt. Khazano. Since Likhi died intestate and issueless, therefore by virtue of CS No. : 326/16 1/22 sub­section (a) of Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, his brother Ghasi who was in cultivatory possession of the land with late Sh. Likhi, being the male lineal descendant in the male line of the descent, inherited the bhumidari rights in respect of the said land to the exclusion of his widow Smt. Khazano. However, smt. Khazano alongwith Sh. Chander Bose S/o Rirku and his mother Smt. Chhajia W/o Sh. Rirku, by practicing fraud and misrepresentation of facts, wrongly obtained mutation of the land from revenue authorities in their names vide mutation dated 19.5.1965. It was misrepresented before the authorities that Likhi was also survived by his son Chander Bose and Smt. Chhajia being his second wife.

3. Series of litigation between the parties with regard to possession of the suit land did not result in favour of plaintiffs who are legal heirs of deceased Sh. Ghasi. However, plaintiffs were permitted opportunity to file the appropriate civil suit for claiming possession of the land in question on the basis of their right, title and interest in the subject property. Hence the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ghasi seeking decree for declaration, possession as well as permanent injunction against the defendants with regard to land in question.

4. In written statement filed on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 11 and 13 to 21, it was stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit land. The land in suit was recorded in bhumidari of Smt. Khazano, Sh. Chander Bose and Smt. Chhajia and the said land was in possession of the recorded Bhumidars of suit land. All the three persons namely Smt. CS No. : 326/16 2/22 Khazano, Sh. Chander Bose and Smt. Chhajia sold the suit land to the defendants/predecessor in interest of defendants vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.1971 and thereafter defendants came in actual physical possession of suit land as Bhumidars. However, Late Sh. Ghasi, father of plaintiffs who had bad intention to grab the land of Smt. Khazano, Chander Bose and Chhajia started disputing the possession of defendants and now has filed the instant suit on wrong and misrepresented facts. Thus they are not entitled for any relief as has been sought.

5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 24.2.2014 :­ (1) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC as barred by limitation, res judicata and /or under various provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD

(ii) If the issue of the suit is held to be barred by limitation against the plaintiffs then whether the plaintiffs can be said to be bona fide prosecuting their remedy in a forum which was not competent to give them the relief and thus, entitled to exclude the period spent by them in that forum under section 14 of the Limitation Act ? OPP

(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be rejected under order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC as not properly valued and appropriate court fees has not been paid ? OPD

(iv) Whether the suit is not properly signed, verified and filed in accordance with order VI CPC? OPD CS No. : 326/16 3/22

(v) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred under order II Rule 2 CPC? OPD

(vi) If the aforesaid issues are decided in negative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration, as prayed for ? OPP

(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the suit land? OPP

(viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

(ix) Relief Witnesses Examined :­

6. In plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff no.3 Mangal Sain examined himself as PW1 and relied upon following documents :­

(a) Power of Attorney dated 25.3.2011 is Ex. PW1/1

(b) Certified copy of mutation deed dated 19.5.1965 are Ex. PW1/2 & Ex. PW1/3.

(c) Certified copy of Judgment dated 16.4.1983 is Ex. PW1/4.

(d) Certified copy of judgment dated 16.4.1983 is Ex. PW1/5.

(e) Certified copies of judgment dated 27.4.1983 and 13.10.1989 are Ex. PW1/6 (a) and Ex. PW1/6 (b).

(f) Certified copy of judgment dated 17.2.2011 is Ex. PW1/7.

(g) Copy of ration card of Late Sh. Chander Bose alongwith its English Transliteration is Ex. PW1/8.

7. In defendant's evidence, following witnesses were examined:­

8. D1W1 is Sh. Babu Ram i.e. defendant no.1 who relied upon following documents:­

(a) Certified copy of form P5 is Ex. D1W1/1.

(b) Certified copy of sale deed dated 29.12.1971 is Ex. D1W1/2 (colly)

(c) Certified copy of sale deed dated 29.12.1971 is Ex. D1W1/3.

(d) Certified copy of order dated 16.4.1983 is Ex. D1W1/4

(e) Certified copy of order dated 29.4.1983 is Ex. D1W1/5.

(f) Certified copy of order dated 21.3.1978 is Ex. D1W1/6.

(g) Certified copy of Ration Card is Ex. D1W1/7

(h) Certified copy of extract of Electoral Roll dated 31.7.1987 is Ex. D1W1/8.

(i) Certified copy of order dated 27.4.1983 is Ex. D1W1/9.

(j) Certified copy of order dated 22.4.1983 is Ex. D1W1/10.

(k) Certified copy of application under order 23 Rule 1 CPC is Ex. D1W1/11 (colly) (L) Certified copy of application for compromise is Ex. D1W1/12

(m) Certified copy of reply filed by Sh. Chander Bose of application u/o 22 Rule 4 CPC is Ex. D1W1/13.

(n) Certified copy of plaint titled as Mangat Singh Vs. Babu Ram is Ex. D1W1/14 (colly)

(o) Certified copy of amended plaint titled as Mangat Singh Vs. CS No. : 326/16 5/22 Babu Ram is Ex. D1W1/15 (colly)

(p) Certified copy of written statement in case titled as Mangat Singh Vs. Babu Ram is Ex. D1W1/16 (colly)

(q) Certified copy of replication in case titled as Mangat Singh Vs. Babu Ram is Ex. D1W1/17 (colly)

(r) Certified copy of order dated 23.8.1988 in case titled as Rati Ram Vs. Ram Bhaj Gupta is Ex. D1W1/18 (colly)

(s) Certified copy of order dated 14.10.1988 is Ex. D1W1/19 (colly).

9. D1W2 is Sh. Ashok, JJA from Record Room Sessions, Tis Hazari Courts who brought the goshwara register of case file titled as Ram Bhaj Gupta Vs. Smt. Khajano, decided on 27.4.1983 and Rati Ram Vs. Ram Bhaj Gupta decided on 23.8.1988 and exhibited the report on goshwara register as Ex. D1W2/1 (colly).

10. D1W3 is Sh. Yogender from Office of Financial Commissioner who brought the summoned record regarding case file titled as Mangat Singh Vs. Ram Bhaj Gupta and exhibited the certified copy as Ex. D1W1/6.

11. D1W4 is Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Attendant from Department of Delhi Archives who brought the summoned record and proved the sale deeds dated 18.01.1972 as Ex. D1W1/3 and Ex. D1W1/2.

12. Defendant no. 26 examined himself as D26W1 and deposed with respect to defendants having possessed the absolute ownership right to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit land being the legal heir of Sh. Chander Bose who in turn had inherited the ownership right in suit land from his CS No. : 326/16 6/22 father Late Sh. Likhi .

13. D26W2 is Sh. Manoj Surin , Add. AERO from Karawal Nagar, FSO Circle­7­ who brought the electoral roll of assembly constituency 70­ Karawal Nagar and ration card pertaining to Chander Bose and his family and exhibited the same as Ex. D26W2/A and Ex. D26W2/B.

14. D26W3 is Sh. Mohan from BSES Karawal Nagar Office who brought the record of electricity connection and other connection in name of Chander Bose and exhibited the same as Ex. D26W3/1 (colly).

15. D26W4 is Sh. Anil Kumar from Zonal Revenue Office who brought the letter dated 11.09.2018 issued by Zonal Revenue Officer­II (NE­I) and exhibited the same as Ex. D26W4/1 .

16. Having heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and having gone through the record, Issue wise findings are as under :­

17. Issues no. 6, 7 and 8 :­ As claimed by plaintiffs, Likhi S/o Fatwa was the bhumidar of land forming part of Khasra no. 28/16/1 (3­18), 29/11 (3­11), 20/2 (1­10), 42/4/2 (0­7), 5/2 (3­7) and 277 (2­1) measuring 14 bighas and 4 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Likhi died in year 1959 and was survived by his wife Smt. Khazano. Since Likhi died intestate and issueless, therefore by virtue of sub­section (a) of Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, his brother Ghasi who was in cultivatory possession of the land with late Sh. Likhi, being the male lineal descendant in the male line of the descent, inherited the CS No. : 326/16 7/22 bhumidari rights in respect of the said land to the exclusion of his widow Smt. Khazano. However, smt. Khazano alongwith Sh. Chander Bose S/o Rirku and his mother Smt. Chhajia W/o Sh. Rirku, by practicing fraud and misrepresentation of facts, wrongly obtained mutation of the land from revenue authorities in their names vide mutation dated 19.5.1965. It was misrepresented before the authorities that Likhi was also survived by his son Chander Bose and Smt. Chhajia being his second wife.

18. Defendant no.1 Babu Ram in April 1972 raised dispute with regard to the possession of the land in question measuring 14 bigha 4 biswas by alleging that he alongwith late Sh. Ram Chander and late Sh. J.N. Gupta had purchased the land in equal shares by virtue of two sale deeds dated 29.12.1971 from Smt. Khazano, Chander Bose and Smt. Chhajia. Proceedings were initiated in the court of SDM Shahdara for the said dispute wherein Ld. SDM in addition to commencing the proceedings requiring both the parties to put in appearance and to file documents relating to the possession of the land in question, also directed the said land to be attached vide order dated 17.4.1972. Since Ld. SDM could not decide as to which party was in possession of the suit land within two months, a reference was made by him to Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Delhi regarding the determination of question of possession vide order dated 11.6.1972. The said reference vide suit no. 81/74 was heard and disposed off by the court of Ld. Sub Judge First Class vide order dated 26.4.1983 in favour of defendant no.1 Babu Ram on the basis of sale deeds dated 29.12.1971 alleged to have CS No. : 326/16 8/22 been executed by Mst. Khazano, Chander Bose and Chhajia, even though by that time, the said documents on being challenged by Smt. Khazaon herself in suit no. 582A/74 against the defendants had been declared as void and were cancelled by Ld. Sub Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.1982.

19. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 28.5.1982, appeal was filed by defendants during pendency of which appeal, Mst. Khazano died and defendants on the basis of application under order 22 Rule 4 r/w sec. 151 CPC wrongly and illegally got substituted Sh. Chander Bose as her legal heir even though she being issueless was not survived by any legal heir and Sh. Chander Bose was son of one Rirku. Thereafter Sh. Chander Bose in collusion and connivance with defendants no. 1, 2 and predecessors of defendants no. 3 to 22, compromised the aforesaid appeal by admitting their claim, as a result of which, appeal was allowed by Ld. ADJ vide order dated 27.4.1983 and decree dated 28.5.1982 was set aside.

20. Aggrieved by the said order of reference dated 27.4.1983, plaintiffs being the LRs of Sh. Ghasi filed suit under section 146 (1E) of Cr.P.C. which was decreed by the court of Ld. ADJ vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.1989, which was again followed by filing of regular first appeal by defendants no. 1,2 and predecessors of defendants no. 3 to 22, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.2.2011 in view of the law laid down in AIR 1996 Supreme Court Pg. 1888 and AIR 1966 Supreme Court Pg. 960 and the order of reference court dated 26.4.1983 which had been set CS No. : 326/16 9/22 aside by the Ld. ADJ, stood revived, however, liberty was given to the plaintiffs to file an appropriate civil suit for claiming possession of the land in question on the basis of their right, title and interest.

21. As stated, the alleged transfer of land in question in favour of defendants Babu Ram and others by Smt. Khazaon, Chander Bose and Smt. Chhajia was incompetent and void because the said persons had no right to transfer or deliver possession in favour of defendants. Moreover, since Late Sh. Ghasi was not party to the said transaction of sale dated 29.12.1971, same was not binding upon him and had no bearing in law qua his right, title and interest qua the suit land. Further, the said sale deeds also stood cancelled being void by the court of Ld. Sub Judge, First Class, in suit filed by one of the alleged executant Smt. Khazano vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.1982, which order though was set aside in appeal but the same was obtained fraudulently by wrongly substituting Sh. Chander Bose S/o Rirku as LR of Smt. Khazano who was never the legal heir of Smt. Khazano. Moreover, even the said decision of Ld. ADJ was not binding upon the plaintiffs who succeeded to the bhumidar rights of Late Sh. Ghasi after his death which took place in year 1978.

22. It was further stated that after the passing of said order dated 17.2.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the defendants have initiated proceedings before SDM Shahdara for release of the land in question and have also threatened the plaintiffs to create third party interest in respect of the land in question.

23. PW1 deposed that the land belonging to Sh. Fatwa was equally divided amongst his legal heirs i.e. Likhi and Ghasi. After the death of Likhi, property was mutuated in name of his wife namely Khazano, Chandra Bose and Smt. Chhajia. However, he stated that it was wrongly so mutated . According to PW1, Likhi died in year 1959 who had one wife namely Khazano, whereas Chandra Bose was son of one Rirku who was residing in the same vicinity where PW1 was residing and he had filed the documents on record on the basis of which he could say that Chander Bose was son of Rirku. The said documents brought on record by this witness were Ex. PW1/8 i.e. copy of ration card and other document i.e. electoral voter list reflecting Sh. Chander Bose as son of Rirku. Electoral voter list was Ex. PW1/D23. Claim made by PW1 with regard to said property was on the basis of Sh. Likhi being issueless and after his death, PW1 being nephew of deceased alongwith other LRs of deceased Ghasi was claiming the rights on the basis of succession.

24. Ex. PW1/8 is copy of ration card issued as on 1.1.1983 wherein name of Chander Bose is reflected as Son of Rirku with mention of names of his wife Savita , mother Chhajia and two children Kusuma and Sanjay aged 7 and 5 years respectively. Age of Chander Bose as on the date of issuance of ration card was 31 years . Ex. PW1/D23 is the certified copy of extract from electoral rolls of 1987 issued upon the application of Ravinder Singh S/o Mangat Singh reflecting name of Chander Bose as son of Sh. Rirku who was aged 40 years as on 1.1987. The extract is in printed format with CS No. : 326/16 11/22 particulars having been filed in handwriting.

25. Per contra, on behalf of defendants, it was deposed on record that Sh. Likhi had married twice i.e. with Ms. Khazano and Ms. Chhazia and Chander Bose was son of Smt. Chajjia. After the death of Sh. Likhi , Chander Bose inherited the land in question and was recorded Bhumidar of the same alongwith Chajjia and Khazano. The documents brought on record pertaining to parentage of Chander Bose were, electoral voter card Ex. D1W1/8 and ration card Ex. D1W1/7.

26. D26W2 was the Additional AERO who had brought the summoned record i.e. electoral roll of assembly constituency with date of publication as 15.10.2012 Ex. D26W2/A. He also brought on record the ration card pertaining to Chander Bose and his family Ex. D26W2/B. Ex. D26W2/B was the existing data available from EDPS portal of Food and supply department referring to the name of Chander Bose as S/o Lakhi Ram . Ex. D26W2/A is the extract from Electoral Roll 2013 again with reference to the name of Chander Bose as S/o Lakhi Ram with date of publication as 15.10.2012. Both the above documents are seemingly the recent documents, at least after the litigation between the parties had ensued.

27. Ex. PW1/D23 and Ex. PW1/8 are the copies and the record from the concerned department had not been summoned by the plaintiffs to prove the documents on record. Ex. PW1/8 is the copy of ration card with mention of ' OSR' . Ration Card is belonging to Chander Bose and no explanation is on record as to how original of the same was in possession of PW1. As stated CS No. : 326/16 12/22 by PW1 himself that Sh. Likhi died in the year 1959. Chander Bose was about 14/15 years of age in the year 1971 and therefore had to be 26­27 years of age in the year 1983. In terns of Ex. PW1/8, age of Chander Bose was 31 years as on 1.1.1983 and 40 years as on 1.1.1987 as per Ex. PW1/D23. Neither the statement of PW1 nor the documents brought on record by PW1 correspond each other with regard to age of Chander Bose. Nonetheless the documents Ex. PW1/8 as well as Ex. PW1/D23 remained unproved on record for want of original record to be summoned from the office concerned.

28. Similarly D1W1/7 is the ration card in name of Chander Bose S/o Likhi Ram with issuance date of 8.10.1996 and D1W1/8 is extract from electoral roll with the same mention i.e. name of Chander Bose as son of Lakhi Ram for the year 1980. Ex. D1W1/7 is the copy whereas Ex. D1W1/8 is the copy of certified true copy of electoral roll but again no record was summoned to prove both the above documents on record.

29. Defendants however relied upon Ex. D26W3/1 i.e. application for connection of electricity with BSES Yamuna Power Ltd with mention of name of Chander Bose as son of Likhi Ram pertaining to year 2007 and regarding the water connection bearing no. WCN no.35012 bearing the name of Chander Bose S/o Likhi Ram. Ex. D26W4/1 refers to the office record of WC no. 35012 which was sanctioned in the name of Chander Bose S/o Likhi upon deposit of payment vide G8 No. 469097 dated 23.3.1983 although the file was not traceable being old record.

30. None of the parties contended with regard to validity of the alleged second marriage of Sh. Likhi . After the death of Likhi, his property was mutuated in name of his wife namely Khazano, Chazzia and his son Chander Bose, as admitted by PW1 himself, though he volunteered to state that it was wrongly mutated.

31. No contention nor contrary evidence being available on record with regard to validity of alleged marriage of Chhazia with Likhi and considering the age of the parties on record , the marriage of Chhazia , if any, is taken as performed with Likhi prior to bar introduced in Hindu Marriage Act with regard to the second marriage. After the death of Likhi , the property was mutuated in name of Khazano, Chhazia and Chander Bose in the year 1965 which was not refuted by the alleged sole legal heir of Likhi i.e. his widow Khazano, thereby there seems to no dispute from her side with respect to the status of Chhazia, being the second wife and Chander Bose being son of Likhi. Plaintiffs lost their claim with regard to possessory rights over the property in question and with regard to alleged wrongful mutuation in name of Khazano, Chazzia and Chander Bose till the last forum.

32. Ld. counsel for plaintiffs contended that Sh. Likhi died in year 1959 who was survived only by his wife Khazano. Likhi died intestate and issueless, whereas his real brother Ghasi who was in cultivatory possession of the suit land with late Sh. Likhi, succeeded to his bhumidari rights by virtue of sub section (a) of section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act being the male lineal descendant in respect of the suit land to the exclusion of his CS No. : 326/16 14/22 widow Smt. Khazano . As further submitted, even though Ghasi succeeded to the Bhumidari rights, but widow of Sh. Likhi Smt. Khazano alongwith Sh. Chander Bose and his mother Chhazia prevailed upon the revenue authorities for getting mutated the suit land by practicing fraud and mis representation of facts on the basis of mutuation no. 783 dated 19.05.1965 in their favour.

33. After the litigation ensued between the parties, defendant no.1 raised dispute with regard to possession of the suit land alleging that he alongwith defendant no. 2 now represented by defendants no. 3 to 11 as his LRs and Sh. J.N. Gupta now represented by defendants no. 12 to 22 as his Lrs, had purchased the land on the basis of registered deeds from Smt. Khazano, Chander Bose and Chhazia, as a result of which, proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated . The question of possession could not be decided and reference was made to the court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge which was answered in favour of defendant no. 1. Simultaneously the sale deeds executed by Khazano in favour of defendants were declared null and void, in the separate legal proceedings which order was challenged in appeal . During the pendency of appeal, Khazano expired and the application moved by Chander Bose under order 22 rule 4 r/w sec. 151 CPC claiming himself as son of Khazano was allowed. The matter stood compromised between the parties. Plaintiffs also preferred the appeal against the order in reference and filed separate suit for declartory relief pertaining to the cancellation of consent decree. The suit was decreed in favour of plaintiffs which was again CS No. : 326/16 15/22 challenged in appeal and vide order dated 17.2.2011, appeal filed by defendants was allowed, resulting in revival of the order of reference Court, however liberty was permitted to the LRs of Sh. Ghasi i.e. plaintiffs herein to file appropriate suit , to pursue their legal rights pertaining to the suit land. On behalf of defendants, another objection was taken with respect to non impleadment of LRs of other brother of Likhi and Ghasi whose name was Bhagwan Dass and his LRs were alive at the time of filing of suit. As submitted, non disclosure and non inclusion of name of other brother of deceased by the plaintiff clearly shows their malafide intention to grab and usurp the property exclusively.

34. The contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs that the suit land/ Bhumidari rights had devolved upon the real brother of Sh. Likhi namely Ghasi, by virtue of sub section (a) of Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act being the male lineal descendant, is not finding force with this court. Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act refers to general order of succession from males. When a Bhumidar or Asami being male dies, his interest in holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given in Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act.

35. Relevant extract from section 50 of DLR Act is as follows: ­ " Subject to the provisions of section 48 and 52, when a Bhumidar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of the succession given below :­

(a) Male lineal descendants in the male line of descent:

Provided that no member of this class shall inherit if any male descendant between him and the deceased is alive:

Provided further that the son or sons of a predeceased son howsoever low shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the deceased if he had been then alive;

        (b)       Widow;
        (c)       Father;
        (d)       Mother, being a Widow;
        (e)       Step mother, being a widow;
        (f)       father's father;
        (g)       father's mother, being a widow;
        (h)       Widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent;
        (i)       unmarried daughter;
        (j)       brother being the son of same father as the deceased;
        (k)       Unmarried Sister;
        (l)       .......................................................

36. Predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was the brother of deceased Likhi, therefore, by no stretch of interpretation is male lineal descendant in the male line of descent as sought to be submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs. Brother of deceased is enlisted at Sr. No. (j) and would deserve the rights only in absence of category of heirs preceding him including the widow, mother , father , step mother etc. as per the order of preference and not to the exclusion of other legal heirs preceding him. Even if Chander CS No. : 326/16 17/22 Bose was held to be not the son of Deceased Likhi and Smt. Chhazia not being the wife of deceased Likhi , his widow namely Smt, Khazano definitely as per order of preference excludes the rights of the brother with regard to the bhumidari rights, in which eventuality, it is Smt. Khazano who shall exclude the devolution of interest upon the brother of deceased.

Plaintiffs in these circumstances, being successors in interest/LRs of deceased Ghasi Ram i.e. brother of Bhumidar, did not inherit any rights in the suit land in terms of section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act to the exclusion of legal heirs preceding them in the order of preference. Plaintiff's case in these circumstances with regard to declaration of devolution of Bhumidari rights in their favour stands discarded and consequently no relief of possession or permanent injunction can be granted in their favour.

37. However, this court is at pain to note the existing gender dis­equality even after so many years of independence. The principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Indian constitution in its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles. The constitution not only grants equality to women, but also empowers the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favour of women. Although the constitution promises no discrimination on the basis of sex as a fundamental right, most inheritance and ceiling provisions relating to one of the most important economic resources in the country continue to be highly gender discriminatory.

38. Ownership of land plays an important role in strengthening women's CS No. : 326/16 18/22 agency and giving them opportunities to assert themselves. Land is more than an important asset in the fight against global poverty and gender inequality. There is ample evidence that women's land rights lead to positive outcomes for the well­being of them and their families. Since land is a valuable and critical resource, the resistance towards women's land ownership rights is equally strong in the patriarchal system that governs Indian society. The Institutions responsible for making laws, and the people that implement them, are themselves deeply conditioned with the customs , practices and beliefs that create barriers for women to own land.

39. The numerous barriers in land ownership that Indian women face include lack of legal awareness about their inheritance rights, the reluctance to claim property from hostile family members and skewed implementation of laws fuelling gender social discrimination. The property rights of the Indian women depend on which religion she follows, if she is married or unmarried, which part of the country she comes from, if she is tribal or non tribal and so on. Despite the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 explicitly ensuring equal inheritance rights for women, laws in several states do not necessarily follow the same spirit and equally are responsible the people who due to their greed continue to deprive the women from their legitimate rights as in the instant matter. Smt. Khazano, widow of Late Sh. Likhi Ram was alive and had inherited the rights after the demise of her husband even if there was dispute with regard to parentage of Chander Bose. Brother of deceased Likhi Ram did not derive any right in the CS No. : 326/16 19/22 property left by his deceased brother , yet left no stone unturned to deprive widow of deceased Likhi Ram from her legitimate share.

40. It is astonishing to note that literal interpretation of section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act does not acknowledge any right in the land in favour of daughter alongwith the son . Even the widow falls in the second order of preference than the son . Married daughter is totally deprived of the right in the land upon the presumption that the married daughter shall have her share in the property belonging to her husband without realizing that the married daughter having lost her husband does not derive any right as per section 50 in presence of her son or sons.

41. Till the legislature wakes up to bridge the gap and to eradicate the discrimination, the judgment passed in Chand Ram & Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. in LPA no. 92/2005, decided on 9.8.2012 shall be the guiding factor . Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in the case (supra) while hearing LPA noted that the Ld. Single Judge had found the outcome to be resulting in discrimination on the basis of gender and made suggestions to the legislature to remedy the situation regarding the discriminative female inheritance. Another judgment was quoted i.e. Sh. U.N. Bhardwaj Vs. Sh Y.N. Bhardwaj 173 (2010) DLT 483 wherein it was noted that keeping the commandment of article 13 of constitution in mind and contextualizing it in relation to section 4 and 6 of Hindu Succession Act r/w article 15 of Constitution of India, the court is under an obligation to avoid the odium of gender discriminatory interpretation to any CS No. : 326/16 20/22 law which denies property rights to women.

42. It was further noted that on coming into force of the Succession Act, life estate by virtue of section 14 thereof converted into an absolute estate, thus the inheritance in favour of female shall be the absolute agricultural holding within the meaning of section 51 (2) (a) (ii) of DLR Act and such holding shall devolve in accordance with section 53 and not upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male proprietor under section 51 (2) (a) (i). Similarly the prohibition in section 48 (2) of the Act was held to be not applicable to females covered by section 51 (2) (a) (ii).

43. Having discussed as above, it is held that Ghasi Ram, brother of deceased Likhi and thereafter LRs of Sh. Ghasi Ram, do not derive any rights in the property owned/left by deceased Likhi. All these issues accordingly stand decided against the plaintiff.

44. Issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 :­ With regard to the suit being barred under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, question of title can only be decided by civil court as per the established law. Therefore with regard to the suit having been filed for establishing complex title dispute, same is not barred in the civil court. Reliance is placed upon Siri Ram Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. C.R. No. 143/90 and Anand Pralash & Ors. Vs. Ram Kala and Ors. RFA No. 141/2005 wherein it was observed that " a suit for declaration and injunction about succession rights is maintainable in the civil court. Section 185 does not bar jurisdiction of civil court".

45. With regard to the other issues i.e. suit being barred by limitation, CS No. : 326/16 21/22 resjudicata and bad being not properly valued as well as having not been properly signed, verified and filed in accordance with order VI CPC, besides the bar under order II Rule 2 CPC, it may be noted that all these issues were not pressed during the course of arguments. Besides that, the findings having already been returned on the issues no. 6, 7 & 8, whereby entitlement of the plaintiffs with regard to suit land having been discarded, the finding on the abovesaid issues is rendered insignificant and inconsequential. Therefore, this court does not deem it appropriate to ponder over these issues for the same outcome because of the findings on issues no. 6, 7, & 8 having already been given on merits.

46. Relief: Having discussed as above, suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed with no order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Court                 SAVITA       RAO
                                                     Location: Court No.69,
                                                     North East District,

                                        RAO          Karkardooma Court, Delhi
                                                     Date: 2019.05.06 10:06:27

on this 4th day of May, 2019                         +0530




                                    ( SAVITA RAO)
                               PO­ MACT, NORTH EAST
                              KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI




CS No. : 326/16                                                                   22/22