Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. By this judgment we propose to dispose of this appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, dated 19th September, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in the suit filed by the appellant. In the said suit, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether late Smt. Mishri Devi executed a valid and legal Will dated 18.11.1971 ? (OPD1)

2. Whether the order dated 23.7.1996 in Case No. 704/1988 passed by Shri K.K. Dahiya, SDM/R.A is void, inoperative, ab initio and non est ? (OPP)

3. Whether the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 2 to 6 on 25.7.1996 are null and void and illegal ? (OPP)

4. Whether the mutations made by the Revenue Authority in favor of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 4(i) and (ii), defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 6 are liable to be declared illegal and null and void ? (OPP)

5. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to determine the controversy raised in issues No. 2 to 4 ? (OPP)

6. Relief

2. In the suit, the defendants took up the plea that except for issue No. 1, the rest of the issues namely, issue Nos.2, 3 and 4, cannot be tried by a Civil Court. Issue No. 5 was framed in the light of the said objection taken up by the defendants. Issue No. 5 came to be decided in the impugned judgment and order in favor of the defendants. The findings recorded therein are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant had to concede that so far as issue Nos. 2and4 are concerned, they are probably issues which cannot be decided by a Civil Court and may have to be referred to a Revenue Court for decision, as the said issues relate to title. In this connection, reference was made to the provisions of Section 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. In Subsection (1) of Section 186 it is provided that if there is any dispute with regard to title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of revenue proceedings, in that event the Court may frame an issue on the said question of title and submit the record for decision of the civil court. The issues, namely, issue Nos.2and4, thereforee, are required to be considered by the Revenue Court and if the Revenue Court is of the opinion that the said issues relate to the question of title then the same are required to be referred to the competent Civil Court for its decision as laid down under Section 186(1) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. To the aforesaid extent there is also admission on the part of the appellant which is disclosed from the impugned order, where the learned Single Judge referred to the said admission thus:

Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the Order dated 12.03.2007 needs to be modified to the extent that it is only issues No. 2 and 4 which cannot be tried by the Civil Court (Collateral proceedings being pending before the Revenue Court) and not issue No. 3.

4. The aforesaid admission and concession made before the Learned Single Judge on behalf of the appellant clinches the issue that the aforesaid issues namely, issue Nos. 2 and 4 cannot be decided by the Civil Court and are required to be considered by the Revenue Court in an appropriate proceeding. We are informed that the said proceeding is pending as of date and, thereforee, it would be proper for the appellant to take recourse to the provisions of Section 186(1) of the Act and in case the appellant is able to satisfy the Revenue Court that the provisions of Section 186(1) are applicable, in that event, the appropriate Revenue Court would pass an order in accordance with law.

5. We are, thereforee, now left with question as to whether or not issue No. 3 is also required to be decided by the competent Revenue Court as contended by the respondent or whether the Civil Court may be required to decide the same only when there is a reference to that effect by the compe