REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 31, 2005

2. The plaintiffs (appellants and the respondent No.2) had filed a suit for passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

cancellation and declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the four plaintiffs/appellants and late Shri Pehlad were the joint bhumidhars of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.43/16 (4-9), 15/2 (3-4), 16 (4-16) 25/1 (0-6), 190/3 (3-19) and residential plot bearing No.235 (1-0) measuring 1 bigha, total 17 bighas 14 biswas situated in the Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, Delhi. Shri Pehlad died on 07.01.2000 at the age of 48 years as a bachelor. After the death of Pehlad, the appellants by virtue of the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 succeeded to his estate being the real brothers and natural heirs of the deceased. The appellants on 18.04.2000 accordingly moved an application for mutating the share in the agricultural bhumidhari holding left behind by Shri Pehlad in their names. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) moved another application before the Tehsildar for mutation in his name on the ground that Shri Pehlad had executed a will dated 15.07.1996 in his favour. According to the appellants, the will purported to have been executed by the deceased in favour of the respondent is a forged and fabricated document. The appellants have stated in the plaint that the respondent on the basis of the said forged will was threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the appellants over the suit land. The appellants thus filed the present suit claiming their right over the land on the basis of inheritance from the deceased, asserting that the documents including the will dated 15.07.1996 being put forth by the respondent were forged and fabricated and conferred no title on the respondent.

3. The suit filed by the appellants was contested by the respondent, who raised a preliminary objection that the suit as framed for declaration with consequential relief was not maintainable as the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of agricultural land in view of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. On merits, the respondent denied that after the death of Pehlad the appellants had succeeded to his estate and contended that in view of the fact that the Pehlad had left behind a will in favour of the respondent, the civil court had no jurisdiction to declare the same as null and void, and the suit was not maintainable. It was also stated that the appellants were out of possession and the respondent was in possession of the agricultural land and that the appellants wanted to dispossess the respondent after obtaining an injunction order.

4. The appellants filed replication wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and the pleas raised by the respondent in the written statement denied.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15.10.2003:-

“1. Whether the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD.

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of para 2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement? OPD.

3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

7. Relief.”

6. At the time of hearing of the parties, Issue No.3 was decided against the respondent, Issue No.4 was not pressed and Issues No.5, 6 and 7 were disposed of on the findings rendered on Issues No.1 and 2. The appellants were held not entitled to the relief of declaration or permanent injunc