Section 185(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act does not bar the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a suit for declaration of title to agricultural land, unless the suit is for declaration of Bhumidhari rights.

M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) BY this order, I propose to decide the following preliminary issue framed on 25. 1. 1990:

"whether the suit as framed is maintainable?"

( 2 ) TO appreciate the merits of the controversy, it will be necessary to give brief narrative of the material facts. Plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are real brothers. Defendant No. 2 is the brother-in-law of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is the wife of the defendant No. 2. The agricultural lands measuring 11 bighas and 7 biswas, bearing Kh. Nos. 555 (4-16), 556/2 (2-14), 556/l (0-9-l-14), 557 (l-14) situated in Village Aya Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (here in after referred to as the suit land) were owned and possessed by the plaintiff. On 8. 6. 1981, the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. l,02,000. 00 vide deed of agreement dated 8. 6. 1981. On that date,defendantno. 1,after receiving sale consideration from the plaintiff, placed him in possession of the suit land. On the same day, the defendant No. 1 also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit land. Although the plaintiff cultivated the suit land for the period from 1983 to 1986, but despite repeated request the Revenue Authorities did not mutate his name in the Revenue records in respect of the said land. According to the plaintiff, on 31. 1. 1986, the defendant No. 1 wrongfully sold the suit land to the defendant No. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 31. 1. 1986. Thereafter, the defendant No. 3 sold the suit land to Smt. Kaushalya Devi (defendant No. 4), who in turn sold the same to the defendant No. 5 vide registered sale deed dated 14th January, 1987. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession thereon.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit. The defendants No. 4 and 5 resisted the suit on various grounds. According to the defendants, on 31. 1. 1986, the defendant No. 1 sold the land to the defendant No. 3 under the registered sale deed followed by delivery of possession. On 10. 3. 1986, the suit land was mutated in the Revenue record in the name of the defendant No. 3. On 10. 10. 1986 the defendant No. 3 sold the suit land to the defendant No. 4, who in turn sold the same to the defendant No. 5 vide registered sale deed dated 14. 1. 1987 and placed the defendant No. 5 in possession thereof. It was stated that the plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land and so the plaintiff s suit for mere declaration without consequential relief is barred. It was further stated that the suit is also barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (for short The Act ).

( 4 ) THE question for determination in this case is whether Section 185 (1) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of a civil Court to entertain a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration of title in respect of an agricultural land. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that Section 185 (1) does not stand in the way of the institution of a civil suit founded on title and what is excluded from the cognizance of a Civil Court under Section 185 (1) is a suit for declaration of Bhumidhari rights in respect of an agricultural land. Learned Counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, contended that the present suit in substance is for declaration of Bhumidhari rights in respect of the suit land and so it is barred under Section 185 (1) of the Act. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hathi v. Sunder Singh, AIR 1971 S. C. 2320, in which it was held by the Supreme Court that a person claiming Bhumidhari rights in respect of an agricultural land is not entitled to approach the Civil Court, but should make an application to the Revenue Assistant and the Civil Court s jurisdiction to entertain such a suit is bar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document