SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J

1. The application being IA No.5279/2008 has been made by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit was not maintainable under law.

2. The first ground taken is that the suit has been filed for declaring a registered sale deed dated 17th June, 1982 as null and void and for declaration of consequent mutation proceedings in the year 1986 mutating the agricultural land in the name of predecessor Shri Madan Lal as null and void. The suit was barred by limitation as well as barred by the provisions of Delhi Land Reform Act and other Revenue laws and cannot be entertained. All other reliefs prayed by the plaintiffs emanate from the first relief of declaring the sale deed and the mutation as null and void.

.3. It would be advantageous to narrate the facts stated in the plaint briefly. It is stated that in the year 1982, Shri Madan Lal had advanced a sum of Rs.48,000/- as financial help to Sh. Harpal Singh but taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of Sh. Harpal Singh, instead of getting a mortgage deed registered with sub Registrar in respect of the land in question, he got registered a sale deed of the land in his favour transferring 2 bighas one biswa of land in Khasra No. 195, Village Mohammadpur, Majri in his favour. The sale deed was registered as documents no. 3478 in Additional Book No. I, Volume 4014, Page No. 64-67 on 17.6.1982. Further funds were taken from Shri Madan Lal in 1989 and again in 1989 Shri Madan Lal paid Rs. 45,000/- and instead of getting a mortgage deed, got registered a sale deed in a similar fashion in respect of the land. Sh. Harpal Singh expired on 2.11.2000. It is alleged that plaintiff nos. 6 to 10 applied to Revenue Authority for change of their names in the Revenue Record and at that time plaintiffs were informed that out of 4 bighas and 12 biswas of land, initially owned by Harpal Singh only one bigha and one biswa stood in his names and rest of the property has been sold by him and 2 bighas and one biswa land was standing mutated in the name of Shri Madan Lal since 1986. It is pleaded that plaintiffs had not received a notice on mutation so they were not aware of this mutation. Plaintiffs had been in possession of property all alone. Some anti-social elements came to suit property of the plaintiffs and attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. However, this

.attempt to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs was averted due to alertness of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs obtained certified copy of the sale deed in favour of Shri Madan Lal and then learnt that it was not a mortgage deed but a sale deed. The allegations of malafide have been made against defendants and of their conspiracy with Revenue Officials and Police to the effect that the Revenue Officials wrongfully transferred and mutated the property in the name of the defendants.

4. The prayer made in the plaint is to declare the sale deed dated 17th June, 1982 as null and void, the mutation proceedings and mutation done in the name of Shri Madan Lal and other defendants as null and void. It is alleged that an agreement to sell dated 9th March, 2006 in favour of defendant no. 4 and registered before the sub Registrar vi(c) Saraswati Vihar, Delhi as document no. 7422, Additional Book No.4, Volume 383, Pages 10 to 13 be also declared as null and void. Another relief claimed by the plaintiffs is that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land measuring 1680 sq. yards out of 2 bigha one biswa land and that the sale document in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 3 and Late Shri Madan Lal be declared null and void. The alternate prayer made is that in case the sale deed cannot be declared null and void on the ground claim being time barred, the plaintiffs be declared owner of the land on the basis of adverse possession since plaintiffs have perfected their title by prescription being in possession of the land for mor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document