Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Ram Pal vs )Sh. Ravinder on 23 July, 2014

                  IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
                  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­01 (CENTRAL)
                        TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI        


C.S. No. 162/2008
Unique I. D. No. 02401C0144752001

Sh. Ram Pal
S/o Late Sh. Tek Chand,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.
                                                                               ......Plaintiff
                     Versus

1)Sh. Ravinder,
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

2)Sh. Ram Mehar,                               (Abated vide order 28.01.08)
S/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.
Through his Guardian :­
Sh. Zile Singh.

3)Sh. Ram Narain,
S/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

CS No.162/2008
Ram Pal  Vs. Ravinder & Ors.                                                          1/25
 4)Sh. Ram Nath,
S/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

5)Sh. Sis Ram,                                 (Abated vide order 28.01.08)
S/o Late Sh. Mohan,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

6)Sh. Bhagwan Singh,
S/o Sh. Sis Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

7)Sh. Sri Ram,                                 (Suit abated against LR of 
S/o Sh. Sis Ram,                               deceased/defendant no­7 vide
R/o Village Rajokari,                          order dated 28.01.08)
New Delhi­110038.
Leaving behind  Legal Heirs:­
(A)Ashok,
S/o Late Sh. Sri Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

(B)Manoj,
S/o Late Sh. Sri Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.


CS No.162/2008
Ram Pal  Vs. Ravinder & Ors.                                                    2/25
 (C)Smt. Pushpa,
D/o Late Sh. Sri Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

8)Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sis Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

9)Sh. Naresh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Sis Ram,
R/o Village Rajokari,
New Delhi­110038.

10)Sh. Bhushan Arora (HUF)
through its Karta Sh. Bhushan Arora,
R/o C­5/11, Safdarjang Development Area,
New Delhi.

11)Sh. Pawan Arora,
R/o C­5/11, Safdarjang Development Area,
New Delhi.

12)British Airways,
through its Chief Executive Officer/Chief Manager,
11th Floor, Gopal Dass Bhavan,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi­110001.




CS No.162/2008
Ram Pal  Vs. Ravinder & Ors.                           3/25
 13)American Express Bank,
through its Chief Executive Officer/Chief Manager,
DCM Building, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi­1100001.
                                                                                                 .......Defendants


  SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND 
               DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS

               Date of institution of suit               :                        30.10.2001
               Date of reserving the judgment            :                        18.07.2014
               Date of pronouncement of judgment :                                23.07.2014

JUDGMENT 

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking reliefs for declaration, permanent injunction and damages on the facts that plaintiff is the co­owner/co­sharer of land falling in Khasra No. 355 (6­10), 357 (4­5), 358 (4­16), 359/2 (2­8) in Khata No. 38/31, village Rajokari, New Delhi, besides the land falling in other Khasra numbers of the same village. However, the scope of the present suit is being restricted to the land falling in Khasra No. 355 (6­10), 357 (4­5), 358 (4­16), 359/2 (2­8). According to the plaintiff, bhumidari rights in respect of above mentioned lands are co­owned by the plaintiff and defendants no­1 to 9 CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 4/25 as per their respective shares. Plaintiff is owner of undivided 1/16th share in the above said lands and defendants no. 1 to 9 are owners of 15/16th undivided share therein. The lands are being governed under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is submitted that land has not been partitioned amongst the parties and therefore the plaintiff has a possession over each and every part of the said lands. The plaintiff has come to know that defendants have transfered their rights/undivided share in the above said lands to and in the name of defendant no. 10/Bhushan Arora, (HUF) through Sh. Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal. The sale deed has been executed by Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal on 08.02.1993. According to the plaintiff, the suit has been filed on account of fraud played by defendants no. 1 to 9 and defendants 10 and 11 and plaintiff has been suffering irreparably. The defendants no. 12 and 13 are in unauthorized and illegal occupation of the lands in question. The plaintiff is suffering continuously while defendants have made undue profit out of it. The plaintiff has every right in each and every part of the lands jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9. The sale deed dated 08.02.1993 is stated to be nonest document as defendants 1 to 9 could not have executed any sale deed in favour of Sh. Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 5/25 or Sh. Bhushan Arora. The sale deed has been executed by playing fraud as no exclusive right could be transfered in the property. The plaintiff has come to know that defendants 1 to 9 executed some power of attorney and on the basis of the same, sale deed has been executed in favour of defendants 10 and 11. No right or title could be transfered by defendants 1 to 9 in the property. It is also mentioned that defendant no. 2 is a person of unsound mind and separate application for appointment of guardian would be filed. The defendant no­2 did not have the capability or understanding to transfer his share in the suit properties. The plaintiff has further mentioned about filing of earlier suits bearing no. 6/92, titled 'Ram Pal Vs. Ram Narain & Ors.', which was dismissed in default on 21.08.1997. Another suit filed by the plaintiff bearing no. 1476/2000, titled 'Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors.' is pending, whereby the plaintiff has sought injunctions against the defendants.

2. The plaintiff also filed a petition u/s 26 of Delhi Land Reforms Act before SDM, Vasant Vihar, seeking partition of joint holdings in Khasra No.355 (6­10), 357 (4­5), 358 (4­16) and 359 (2­8) in Khata No. 38 Min/31, Village Rajokari, against defendants no. 10 and 11. CS No.162/2008

Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 6/25 The plaintiff reserved his right to challenge the sale deed in the suit no. 1476/2000 as plaintiff was not aware of the details. The plaintiff received copy of the sale deed only on 10.08.2001. In view of these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has prayed for decree of declaration, thereby declaring the sale deed dated 08.02.1993 with respect to land falling in Khasra No.355 (1­17), Village Rajokari, New Delhi, as of no consequence, null and void. The decree of permanent injunction is also sought against defendants 10 and 11 restraining them from selling, transferring, alienating or executing any power of attorney in respect of land falling in Khasra No. 355(1­17), 355 (6­10), 357 (4­5), 358 (4­16), 359/2 (2­8) in Khata No. 38/31 falling in Village Rajokari, New Delhi, 355 (1­17), Village Rajokari, New Delhi, on the basis of sale deed dated 08.02.1993, attorney etc. The damages to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs have also been sought against the defendants.

3. The defendants 10 and 11 only contested the case and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that plaintiff in FAO 240/06, pending before High Court of Delhi, recorded his no objection to the sale of share of the land. The defendants have also taken the CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 7/25 objections of jurisdiction of this court as well as suit being barred u/o 2 Rule 2 CPC in view of earlier suit filed by the plaintiff. The objections with respect to the valuation, mis­joinder and non­joinder of proper parties, locus standi of the plaintiff etc. have also been taken. On merits, it is admitted that plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 9 were the co­owners of the property/lands in question but it is submitted that lands were mutually partitioned and in terms of oral settlement the co­owners were carrying out separate and individual cultivation. The plaintiff has admitted this fact in civil suit no. 379/04/00 with respect to Khasra No. 954, 955 and 956. The plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts from this court. Further denying the assertions of the plaintiff as detailed in the plaint, it is contended that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and it is prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 05.11.2008 :­

1)Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit in view of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 8/25

2)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

3)Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction as the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property? OPD

4)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of order 2 Rule 2 CPC?

OPD

5)Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

6)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties? If so its effects? OPD

7)Whether the plaintiff is liable to be rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD

8)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration against the defendant declaring that sale deed dated 08.02.93 is of no consequence, null and void? OPP CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 9/25

9)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property? OPP

10)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for damages? If so, for what amount? OPP

11)Relief.

5. In evidence, Sh. Ram Pal, plaintiff has examined himself as PW­1 vide affidavit EX P­1. The plaintiff relied upon sale deed dated 08.02.1993 EX PW­1/1 and placed on record other documents like revenue record, copy of the plaint of suit no. 6/92, copy of the suit bearing no. 1476/2000, copy of WS, copy of application u/s 26 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, legal notice and photographs of the suit property etc. The plaintiff has been cross­examined.

6. On the other hand, defendant no­10 Sh. Bhushan Arora tendered his affidavit in evidence vide EX DW­1/A and was partly cross­ examined. But thereafter, the witness failed to get his cross­examination completed and accordingly defendant's evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dated 04.07.2013.

CS No.162/2008

Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 10/25

7. I have heard Sh. Arun Sukhija, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff, Sh. Sanjay Manchanda, Ld. counsel for defendants no. 10 and 11 and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the defendants.

8. My findings on the above mentioned issues are as follows:­ Issue No­(1) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit in view of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD

9. The defendant has raised the objection with respect to the jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Ld. counsel for the defendant has referred to judgments of High Court namely, i) Ram Niwas Vs Pitamber Singh & Ors., 2008 (102) DRJ 81 (DB) and ii) Hatti Vs Sunder Singh, September 11, 1970, to stress that jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Delhi Land Reforms Act.

Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 11/25

10. On the other hand, it has been contended by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the reliefs prayed for in the present suit can only be granted by the civil court and revenue courts are not competent to grant the relief and therefore suit is very much maintainable before this court.

Issue No­(2)



                     Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred 
                     by limitation?                     OPD

12. The plaintiff seeks declaration with respect to sale deed dated 08.02.1993. According to the plaintiff, he got the certified copy of the same on 10.08.2001. It is stated in para­90 of the plaint that cause of action arose when plaintiff came to know about the execution of sale deed on 10.08.2001 when the plaintiff came in possession of the certified copy of the same.

13. As per law of Limitation, the declaration should have been brought within a period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The plaintiff in his pleadings has not specifically stated as to when he came to know about the existence of sale deed. Even, in the affidavit EX P­1, there is no mention of the date when the plaintiff came CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 13/25 to know about the existence of the sale deed. The sale deed EX DW­1/1 is the certified copy, which has been applied on 31.07.2001. The pleadings of suit no. 1476/2000, Mark­H also show that plaintiff was in knowledge about the factum of execution of sale deed even in July, 2000 when the said suit was filed. According to the documents, placed on record by the plaintiff, the suit to restrain the defendants from transferring the lands was filed on 26.12.1991, bearing suit no. 6/92, plaint of which is Mark­E. Copies of the revenue record placed on record by the plaintiffs Mark­A and B also show that factum of transfer of the properties is entered in the revenue records and copy of the same was obtained in the year 2000. In the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that plaintiff came to know about the sale deed in the year 2001. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove on record the exact date when he came to know about the execution of the sale deed dated 08.02.1993, the cause of action would be taken from the date of the sale deed, which was executed in the year 1993. It is further important to note that plaintiff was pursuing the legal case against the transfer of properties in the year 1991 and it is difficult to believe that he did not come to know about the execution of sale deeds for several years CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 14/25 thereafter. The plea of the plaintiff that he came to know only on 10.08.2001 about the sale deed, is without any merit or substance and is apparently false. In my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to bring the suit within the stipulated period of limitation of three years and cause of action started running from the date sale deed was executed. I hold that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Issue No­(3) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction as the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property? OPD

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD

15. The specific objection with respect to bar of the suit of the plaintiff is taken u/o 2 Rule 2 CPC, by the defendants no. 10 and 11 in their pleadings. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC reads as under :­

2. Suit to include the whole claim - (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.

CS No.162/2008

Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 16/25 (2) Relinquishment of part of claim - Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs - A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.

Explanation - For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.

In the present case, it is admitted fact that plaintiff earlier also filed suits with respect to suit properties. However, on examining the plaint of suit no. 1476/2000, Mark­H, I find that plaintiff should have impleaded all the reliefs in the said suit. The para­5 of the said plaint reads as under :­ CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 17/25 "5. That the defendant nos. 1 to 9 have transferred their share holdings vide number of the sale deeds in favour of the Defendant nos.

10 to 22. All the said sale deeds executed by or on behalf of Defendant nos. 1 to 9 are totally illegal, nonest and void ab­initio as they have been executed and registered in contravention of Sections 33 & 45 of the said Act. Even the mutations entered on the basis of these sale deeds are illegal. In the present suit, the plaintiff is not challenging the sale deeds and the mutations and craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to reserve his right to challenge the same in a separate suit. The plaintiff also craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to apply for and claim rectification of the revenue records got amended/changed by defendants on the basis of the sale deed which are void."

The present case pertains to the declaration of sale deed as null and void, I find no explanation on the record as to why this relief was not pleaded while filing suit no. 1476/2000, Mark­H. Also, nothing has been placed on record to show that any liberty was granted by the court to seek the relief subsequently vide separate suit. There was no CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 18/25 justification for the plaintiff to state that he was not challenging the sale deed and mutations in the suit no. 1476/2000 or that he would be filing a separate suit for the same. The cause of action for filing the suits remains the same and therefore the plaintiff was required to include whole claim in the said suit. The separate relief with respect to cancellation of sale deed as prayed in the present suit is clearly barred u/o 2 rule 2 CPC. The judgment relied upon by Ld. counsel for defendant, "J.D. Jain & Ors. Vs. Sharma Associates & Ors., 167 (2010) DLT 766, is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. I, therefore, hold that suit of the plaintiff is clearly barred u/o 2 rule 2 CPC. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No­(5) Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Issue No­(6) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties? If so its effects? OPD

17. The plaintiff has claimed declaration of sale deed EX PW­1/1 as null and void. The sale deed EX PW­1/1 has been executed by Sh. Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal in favour of defendants no. 10 and 11. In the sale deed, Sh. Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal has claimed himself to be the absolute owner/Bhumidar of the agricultural land measuring 1 Bigha and 17 Biswas, bearing Khasra No. 355, situated in village Rajokari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is also the claim of the plaintiff that suit properties have been transferred to defendants no. 10 and 11 through Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal. However, the plaintiff is not clear CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 20/25 as to how Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal derived the title with respect to the suit properties. Since, it is admitted case of the plaintiff that Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal got right and title of the properties through defendants 1 to 9, who have been the co­owners of the property, it was necessary for the plaintiff to implead Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal as defendant. The declaration sought with respect to the sale deed would affect the rights of Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal and if he is not heard, the rules of natural justice would be violated. It was necessary for the plaintiff to implead Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal as defendant in the present suit which the plaintiff has not done for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. Considering the nature of facts and circumstances and the controversy involved, I am of the opinion that Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal is the necessary party and suit is liable to be dismissed for non­joinder of the necessary party. The issue is answered accordingly. Issue No­(7) Whether the plaintiff is liable to be rejected U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD CS No.162/2008 Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 21/25

18. The plaintiff seeks declaration with respect to sale deed EX PW­1/1 but it is the case of the plaintiff himself that defendants no. 1 to 9 have been the co­owners with respect to 15/16th undivided share in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the lands have not been partitioned and therefore defendant no­1 to 9 should not have transferred their undivided share in the properties. However, I find no legal bar so far as the transfer of undivided share in the properties is concerned by the co­owners. It is evident that Khasra No. 355 comprises of land (6 Bighas and 10 Biswas) and the sale deed EX PW­1/1 pertains to the land 1 Bigha and 17 Biswas only. It is clear that defendants no. 1 to 9 have not sold even their entire share in the land of Khasra No. 355. The plaintiff has pleaded fraud but has failed to show as to what kind of fraud has been played. There is no evidence on this count on the record and further the plaintiff has failed to show any legal right to challenge the sale by other co­owners with respect to their undivided share. In my opinion, the plaintiff has no cause of action to claim the relief by way of present suit and plaint is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 CPC. The issue is accordingly decided.

CS No.162/2008

Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 22/25 Issues No­(8) (9) (10) & (11)

8)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration against the defendant declaring that sale deed dated 08.02.93 is of no consequence, null and void? OPP

9)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property? OPP

10)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for damages? If so, for what amount? OPP

11) Relief.

19. In view of my findings with respect to the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff fails and is dismissed and he is not entitled to the reliefs of declaration, injunction and damages at all. The issues are answered accordingly. No order as to costs.

16. The suit is disposed of in aforesaid terms. CS No.162/2008

Ram Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 23/25 Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to record room. Announced in open Court on 23rd Day of July, 2014.

(ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) Addl. Distt. Judge(Central)­01, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

CS No.162/2008

Ram Pal  Vs. Ravinder & Ors.                                                            24/25
                                                    Ram Pal
                                                      Vs
                                                  Ravinder
                                               C.S. No.162/2008
23.07.2014

Present:             None.

Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on the terms therein. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to record room.

                                                            (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) 
                                                   ADJ (Central)­01, Delhi/23.07.2014




CS No.162/2008
Ram Pal  Vs. Ravinder & Ors.                                                       25/25