Delhi High Court
Rev Singh vs Rishi Pal & Others on 5 May, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
Bench: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of judgment: 05.05.2011
+ R.S.A.No.301/2007 & CM No. 16431/2007
REV SINGH ...........Appellant
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma,
Advocate.
Versus
RISHI PAL & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
27.9.2007 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated
24.5.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Rev Singh seeking
permanent injunction against the defendant with a prayer that the
defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from plot
measuring 200 sq. yards and 75 sq. yards ( as depicted in the site
plan) in khasra No.170, Village Sabhapur, Tehsil Seelampur,
District North East Shahadara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
RSA No.301/2007 Page 1 of 8
the suit property) had been dismissed. Plaintiff claimed himself to
the recorded bhumidar of the aforenoted suit property. He had
carved out plots and sold them to some purchasers. Plaintiff had
retained two plots measuring 200 sq. yards and 75 sq. yards for
himself. He had made boundary wall of bricks around the said
plots. Defendants being influential persons in collusion with the
police threatened to dispossess the plaintiff. Present suit was
accordingly been filed.
2. Defendant no.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte. Defendant
no.3 was the only contesting defendant. It was stated that the
plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. Defendant
no.3 has purchased a plot measuring 150 sq. yards from the son of
the plaintiff namely Bharat Singh who had represented himself to
be the owner of the property having an equal share being a
coparcener in the ancestral land. The sale consideration had been
received by him. Physical possession of the said plot had been
handed over to the contesting defendant. Further contention was
that the defendant had also filed a suit against the plaintiff and his
son as both were creating a hindrance in the construction of the
boundary wall which was purported to be made by the defendant
no.3.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following five issues
RSA No.301/2007 Page 2 of 8
were framed:
1. Whether suit of plaintiff is maintainable in its present form? OP
Parties
2. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred under Section 14(H) and (I) of the
Specific Relief Act or u/o 7 r 11 CPC? OP Parties.
3. Whether jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Section 185 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act? OP Parties.
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as
prayed for? OPP
5. Relief.
4. Oral and documentary evidence was led. The site plan
produced by the plaintiff and proved as Ex.PW-1/1 had been
adverted to. Khatoni Ex.PW-1/2 for the year 1986-86 was not
relied upon as it was not a certified copy. Site plan was also
ignored as the maker of the document i.e. the architect has not
come into witness box. Court was of the view that the plaintiff
himself admitted that he had sold a portion of Khasra No.170 by
carving out plots; further plaintiff had also not given the details of
the said purchasers; plaintiff had failed to prove his case. Suit
was dismissed.
5. This was affirmed in first appeal. Court was of the view that
what the plaintiff was actually seeking was a declaration of his
bhumidari rights which was barred under Section 185 of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the DLRA).
Suit was not maintainable; the first appellate court had returned
RSA No.301/2007 Page 3 of 8
the following finding:
7. Even though the trial court decided issues no.1, 2 and 3 in
favour of the appellant but reading of the plaint goes to show that
the appellant basically wants a declaration that he is a bhumidhar
in respect of the two plots which he allegedly retained for himself
after carving the plots out of his hand by selling others.
According to the written statement filed by the third respondent
had sold the suit plots to them through his son Shri Bharat Singh
thus, the prayer made by the appellant to seek an injunction
order is virtually a prayer for declaration as bhumidhar of the suit
property which relief can always be obtained by the appellant by
approaching Revenue Authority and in fact cannot be granted to
the Civil Judge. Moreover, the averments made in the plaint goes
to show that the appellant is left with no legal right even to be the
bhumidhar of the property which he says has been recorded in his
name in the Khatoni. The acts of the appellant falls under the
provisions of section 33 and 44 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and
deprives him of his status of Bhomidar and cast a cloud over his
title. In fact, the relief which is sought for by the appellant in fact
is a relief of declaration in the garb of a suit for injunction.
Dealing with the similar situation our own High Court in the case
of Ram Karan & Others VS. Jagdeep Rani reported in 79 (1999)
DLT 305 held as under:-
"I am of the considered opinion that the present suit is
barred under the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land
Reforms Act as the issues raised in the present suit could be
effectively decided by the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of
this Court is barred under the provisions of Section 185 of Delhi
Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs in the present suit claim a right
to the suit property as a Bhoomidar which right is denied on the
ground that the plaintiffs have sold out their rights in the suit
land. The rights, if any, of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land
are under cloud, and therefore, for all practical purposes the
plaintiffs are seeking for a declaration of their right as a
Bhoomidar and also seeking for a declaration of their possession
in respect of the suit land. There is apparently a dispute as to
possess of the agricultural land and therefore, such dispute as to
possession of agricultural land could be effectively adjudicated
upon and decided under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms
Act, remedy being under Section 84 read with Item no. 19 of the
First Schedule. All the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, therefore,
in the present suit are within the competent jurisdiction of the
Revenue Assistant where a suit is pending and this Court has no
RSA No.301/2007 Page 4 of 8
jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of the provisions of
Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following
authorities in support of his contention, that in the present case,
the trial court ought to have granted injunction as prayed for.
The authorities are:
i) AIR 1971 SC 2320
ii) DRG 1991 (21) 48
iii) 1974 DLT Vol. X 227.
I have considered the aforesaid judgments. At the outset, I
may observe that the judgments delivered in Hatti Vs. Sunder
Singh (supra) does not help the appellant. In so far as the second
judgment is concerned in the present case, the appellants having
lost their legal rights even to be recognized as bhumidar on
account of having occupy different plots out of the land of which
they claimed to be bhumidar. Thus, the second judgment also
does not come to rescue. Similarly, the judgment delivered in the
case of Mam Raj Vs. Ram Chander is also not applicable to the
facts of this case. Since the suit of the appellant is barred u/s 185
of the Delhi Land Reforms Act the appeal filed by the appellant is
dismissed for the reasons stated above with no orders as to cost.
6. This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on
08.11.2010, the following substantial question of law was
formulated:
Whether the finding in the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2007 holding
that the suit of the appellant is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act was a perverse finding? If so, its effect?
7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that the
judgment suffers from a perversity; a suit for injunction is
maintainable before civil court; the prayer in the plaint is only
seeking an injunction; it was not on the question of title; the
defendant has also failed to show that he had purchased this
RSA No.301/2007 Page 5 of 8
property from Bharat Singh purported son of the plaintiff. It is
pointed out that even otherwise Bharat Singh had no right or title
in the suit property; he could not have sold it to the defendant. It
is pointed out that the impugned judgment dismissing the suit of
the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is barred under Section
185 of the DLRA is a perversity; reliance upon the judgment of
Ram Karan & others Vs. Jagdeep Rai & Sons 79 (1999) DLT 305 is
misplaced. For all the aforenoted reasons, the impugned judgment
is liable to be set aside.
8. Arguments have been rebutted. It is pointed out that the bar
of Section 185 of DLRA is operational; the Court below had rightly
relied upon the judgment of Ram Karan to hold that the suit is
barred u/a 185 of the DLRA.
9. Record has been perused. In the plaint it is categorically
stated that the plaintiff is the recorded bhumidar of the suit
property; he has carved out plots and sold them to other persons;
he is in actual physical possession of the suit property; threats
were extended to the defendant; suit for injunction was
accordingly filed.
10. In the written statement these averments have been refuted.
It is stated that the physical possession of the suit property is with
the defendant; suit land had been purchased by the defendant
RSA No.301/2007 Page 6 of 8
from Bharat Singh (the son of the plaintiff) by documents GPA,
Will and receipts; defendant is not entitled to any relief; further
objection was that the suit is barred under Section 185 of DLRA.
11. The trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on merits.
The trial Judge was of the view that the plaintiff has failed to show
that he is owner of the suit land entitling him to the relief as
claimed by him. The khatoni for the years 1985-1986 Ex. PW-1/1
and the site plan Ex. PW-1/2 had been examined. The legal issue
had however been decided in favour of the defendant; the
impugned judgment had examined only the legal issue. Vide
dealing with issues No. 2 to 4, the court was of the view that the
suit is barred under Section 185 of the DLRA. The finding in the
impugned judgment has been noted supra. The court was of the
view that the plaintiff was actually seeking a declaration to the
effect that he be declared bhumidar; only if he gets the status of a
bhumidar recognized would he be entitled to the relief of
injunction; such a relief was not maintainable before the civil
court; revenue court alone had the jurisdiction to deal with this
issue. Reliance upon the judgment of Ram Karan was in the right
context. In that case, a Bench of this Court had held that where
the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud, for all practical purposes
RSA No.301/2007 Page 7 of 8
the plaintiff, is seeking a declaration of his right as a bhumidar
which issue could be decided only by the revenue court; in that
case also, the plaintiff had claimed himself to be a bhumidar
which had been disputed by the defendant. In the present case as
well, the title of the plaintiff is not clear; he claims himself to be a
bhumidar and recorded owner of the suit land. This has been
disputed by the defendant in his written statement wherein his
categorical version is that the suit land has been sold to him by
the son of the plaintiff and he is in possession of the same. Such a
dispute could only be decided by the revenue court. The impugned
judgment rightly recorded this. No perversity has been pointed
out.
12. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly in
favour of the respondent and against the appellant. There is no
merits in this appeal. Appeal as also pending application are
dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MAY 05, 2011 A/ss RSA No.301/2007 Page 8 of 8