Delhi District Court
Dhanu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 November, 2014
Dhanu Ram v. Union of India & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS SURYA MALIK GROVER
SCJCUMRC (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI
CS No. 173/12
IN THE MATTER OF:
DHANU RAM
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
....DEFENDANTS
ORDER
1. By virtue of this order, the point of maintainability of the suit is being considered.
2. It is noteworthy that on 04.09.2013, Ld. Predecessor had framed issues and had decided to try issue No.5 as regards the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the present suit as preliminary issue. During the course of arguments, it was found that issues No.2 and 4 being pure question of law would also be treated as preliminary issues and order dated CS No. 173/12 Page 1 of 5 Dhanu Ram v. Union of India & Ors.
04.09.2012 was recalled to that extent and parties were directed to address arguments on maintainability of the suit in view of Issues No. 2, 4 and 5.
3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by Sh. V.K. Khurana, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff; Sh. Sanjeev Tandon, Ld. counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2; and Sh. Dilraj Kumar, Ld. counsel for the defendant No.3.
4. Briefly, it is the case of the plaintiff that uncle of the plaintiff had lodged a claim before the Claims Officer of defendants No.1 and 2 as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950. Further, it is averred that allotment was made to Sh. Shanu Ram in the capacity of Karta of Joint Hindu Family. It is further stated that that name of the plaintiff, who was son of one of the co parceners of Joint Hindu Family namely Sh. Khandu Ram was ordered to be impleaded in place of his father in the claim proceedings. Thereafter, defendants No.1 and 2 executed a lease and conveyance deed dated 30.04.1965 duly registered in the individual name of Sh. Shanu Ram as Karta of Joint Hindu Family. It has further been stated that plaintiff is one of the attesting witnesses in the two documents but was under the bona fide impression that the said deed was in favour of Sh. Shanu Ram as Karta of CS No. 173/12 Page 2 of 5 Dhanu Ram v. Union of India & Ors.
Joint Hindu Family. However, when after Shanu Ram's death, one Sh. Mool Chand applied for mutation in his favour, the said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has also filed a civil suit titled 'Dhanu Ram v. Shri Mool Chand & Union of India' for partition in the year 2007 which is also pending disposal and that he could procure the certified copies of office orders/ proceedings of defendants No.1 and 2 only in April, 2007. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking declaration that lease deed and conveyance deed dated 30.04.1965 be declared null and void and may be cancelled and defendants No.1 and 2 may be directed to rectify the said instrument as per law.
5. On the basis of the written statement filed by the defendant No.3, the maintainability of the suit on the following points was questioned by Ld. counsel for the defendant No.3:
a) Bar of Section 10 of Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950;
b) Barred by Limitation Act; and c) Barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.
6. A bare glance at the plaint reveals that plaintiff has admitted in para 3 of his plaint that a lease deed and conveyance deed was executed by defendants No.1 and 2 on 30.04.1965 which was registered in the individual CS No. 173/12 Page 3 of 5 Dhanu Ram v. Union of India & Ors.
name of Sh. Shanu Ram. The fact that the same was in the knowledge of the plaintiff is evident from the fact that he has admitted that he was one of the attesting witnesses to the said documents and having conceded the same, he cannot agitate that the documents may be declared null and void. Further, even though the plaintiff has been quick to add that he was under the bona fide impression that the said documents were in favour of Sh. Shanu Ram being Karta of joint Hindu Family, the said averment does not inspire confidence and is patently hit by law of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. Considering that averment of the plaintiff, that he was under the bona fide impression that lease deed and conveyance deed was in favour of Sh. Shanu Ram being Karta of joint Hindu Family is assumed to be true and correct for the sake of arguments, even then the plaintiff would have got knowledge about the actual conveyance deed in the year 2006 and the present suit seeking declaration and rectification of lease deed and conveyance deed must have been filed within three years from then. However, the instant suit having been filed only in September, 2012 is prima facie barred by law of limitation.
7. Finally, coming to the question as to whether Civil Court is having jurisdiction to hear the matter as barred under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950, Section 10 Displaced Persons (Claims) CS No. 173/12 Page 4 of 5 Dhanu Ram v. Union of India & Ors.
Supplementary Ordinance, 1954 and Section 9 Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954 as the said Acts have been repealed, and the office of Chief Settlement Commissioner or the settlement officer who was empowered to determine has been abolished, to my mind, in view of the Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the proceedings under this Act shall be continued as if the Repealing Act has not been passed. However, the present suit having been prima facie barred by law of limitation, the question of any Court/ authority having or not having jurisdiction does not arise at all and, therefore, the said argument as such is untenable.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open (Surya Malik Grover)
Court on 18.11.2014) SCJcumRC (South), Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CS No. 173/12 Page 5 of 5