PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Appellants had filed a suit for partition and injunction alleging that they were the daughters of late Shri Khem Chand. They impleaded their 3 brothers and their sister as defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. It was stated in the plaint that the suit land measuring 4.5 kila in Khata No.88/54 in the revenue estate of Village Mundla Khurd, Tehsil Najafgadh, Delhi was owned by their father and on his death the sons and the daughters each acquired 1/6th share in the suit land. On said basis, alleging that no partition had been effected, partition was prayed for.

2. In the written statement filed by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the brothers, it was stated that Khem Chand expired on 10.6.1993 and as per the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 succession to the holding being governed under Section 50 thereof, as sons, they alone were entitled to succeed to the holding since their sisters were married. Thus, entitlement of the plaintiffs was denied. It was stated that on death of the father the suit lands were mutated in the names of the 3 sons. It was alleged that the mutation entry had attained finality. Lastly, it was urged that right, if any, was to seek partition of the suit land before the revenue authorities. It was pleaded that by virtue of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the reason under Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act a Bhumidar was entitled to sue for partition and as per entry at serial No.11 of the Ist Schedule to the Act the court of Revenue Assistant was the court of competent jurisdiction.

3. In replication filed by the appellants it was pleaded that by virtue of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, since Sub-Section 2 to Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was deleted, succession to the holding of late Khem Chand had to be as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was further stated that the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act do not apply to the suit land.

4. By and under the impugned order learned Trial Judge has found a prima facie case against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 on account of the fact it has been held that the succession opened when Khem Chand died in the year 1993 and as per law then applicable succession was in favour of the sons. Holding no prima facie case in favour of the appellants on the maintainability of the suit, injunction has been declined.

5. Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted read as under :-“4.Over-riding effect of Act.-(1)Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,-(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. 2. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provision of any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings.”

6. Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 reads as under :-“50. General order of succession from males.-Subject to the provisions of section 48 and 52, when a Bhumidar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of the succession given below: (a) male lineal descendants in the male line of the descent: Provided that no member of this class shall inherit if any male descendant between him and the deceased is alive: Provided further that the son or sons of a predeceased son howsoever low shall inherit the share which