RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The defendants have challenged the very maintainability owing to the bar of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, and which is for consideration.

2. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff herein along with the defendant No.4 herein as plaintiff No.1 for the relief of partition of agricultural land ad-measuring 6.75 acres in Village Auchandi, Delhi and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said land. In the plaint as original filed it was the case that Shri Nand Ram Verma being the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1,2and4 (who was then the plaintiff No.1) and the grandfather of the defendant No.3 was the owner of the said land; that after the demise of the said Shri Nand Ram Verma, in or about 1996 there was a settlement amongst the plaintiff, defendants No.1,2,4 and the father of the defendant No.3 as well as the widow of the said Shri Nand Ram Verma whereby all the family members agreed that the present plaintiff being the only daughter of Shri Nand Ram Verma shall be entitled to a equal share in the aforesaid land in terms of the last wishes of Shri Nand Ram Verma; that in accordance with the said family settlement the plaintiff, defendants No.1,2and4 and the father of the defendant No.3 became the owner of 1/5 equal share in the aforesaid land; that however it was discovered in 2006 that the land had been mutated in the names of the defendants only and the name of plaintiff was not mentioned in the revenue records in contravention of the family settlement. The suit was thus filed for partition and injunction aforesaid.

3. The defendant No.4 (who was then the plaintiff No.1) however appeared before this court on 3rd April, 2006 and stated that he would not like to pursue the case any further. The suit being for partition, he was transposed as the defendant No.4 as the plaintiff herein wanted to continue with the proceedings.

4. The defendants No.1,2,and 3 filed a common written statement. The defendant No.4 also filed a written statement. It was inter-alia contended that the suit was barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

5. On 14th February, 2007 the following preliminary issue was framed:- 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 OPD

6. On 16th May 2007 arguments were heard on the aforesaid preliminary issue. It is recorded in the order of that date that it was clear from Section 185 r/w Section 50 and Schedule 1 of the said Act that the suit for partition of agricultural land cannot be entertained by the Civil Court and the Revenue Assistant is the original court of jurisdiction in respect of such suits. It is further recorded that faced with this dilemma the counsel for the plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint which permission was granted.

7. I.A. No.12756/2007 was thereafter filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff by the said application sought to delete the relief of partition from the plaint and sought to confine the relief claimed in the plaint to that of declaration and injunction. The defendants filed their reply to the said application in which they inter alia contended that the suit even after amendment would be barred by the aforesaid provisions of law.

8. On 1st October, 2008 the counsel for the defendants reiterated the aforesaid argument. However, since the arguments on maintainability could not be heard without first allowing the amendment, the application for amendment was allowed and arguments were also heard on the maintainability of the suit as per the amended plaint.

9. The counsel for the plaintiff does not dispute that the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act apply to the land. It is also not disputed that under Section 50 thereof the Bhumidari rights of Shri Nand Ram Verma aforesaid do not devolve upon the plaintiff as the daughter and devolve only upon the male descendants i.e. the defendants on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document