Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. I am, however, of the view that such observation does not seem to be in consonance with the pleadings set up by the plaintiff. A very close scrutiny of the plaint would divulge that plaintiffs always claimed themselves to be the co-Bhoomidars but, in the same breath and with lot of hesitation and mysterious uncertainty, raised question about certain transaction carried out by their father (in the first appeal) and by the plaintiff himself in the second matter. According to them, these documents did not have any force in law and that these had been got executed in a fraudulent manner. They also alleged that the rights in favour of the defendant company did not, even otherwise, stand crystallized because of the fact that no further action was taken subsequent to execution of such documents and, therefore, mere agreement to sell, GPA or Will could not have conferred any right. I must say that the relief has been couched by them in a very smart and nifty manner. They sought positive as well as negative declaration. According to them, though they had the Bhoomidar rights but the defendant company was relying on the aforesaid documents, which did not confer any right upon the defendant company, and, therefore, they sought declaration that they be declared recorded co-Bhoomidars of the suit property and it be also declared that the defendants had no legal right, title or interest in the suit property, based on such documents. They sought declaration of the fact of which, even as per their case, they were never unsure of.

34. Fact remains that the findings given by the Consolidation Officer and Financial Commissioner were not disturbed as such, though at the same time, the petitioners/plaintiffs herein were given right to agitate about their title and the defendant company was also given opportunity to oppose such relief/remedy, including on the aspects of jurisdiction and limitation.

35. The proceedings, which took place before the Consolidation Officer and which went up to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, would go on to show that the encumbrance of defendant company was recognized primarily on the basis of the aforesaid documents i.e. agreement to sell, will, GPA, receipt, affidavit and possession letter. Despite having liberty from the Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiffs did not file any suit seeking any title as such. They, in the present suits too, claim themselves to continue to be the co-Bhoomidars and, for the reasons best known to them, also seek a declaration to that effect. They also have sought a negative declaration that it be declared that the defendant company was having no right or title or interest in the suit land. However, they have not sought the cancellation of any such document on any ground whatsoever. It is really intriguing to comprehend as to on what basis, it can seek such negative declaration, without, at least, seeking cancellation of such documents. Moreover, with respect to the agreement to sell, the defendant company has already filed a suit for specific performance which is still pending adjudication. As noted by learned Trial Court, I am also of the considered opinion that the suit, as presented by the plaintiffs, was merely in the nature of seeking injunction and that relief of declaration was a mere surplusage relief. It also seems that injunction has been prayed to somehow negate the palpable consequences bound to flow from the acknowledgment of right of defendant company under sec 26 of Holdings Act.