The central legal point established in the judgment is that claims related to bhumidari rights fall under the jurisdiction of the revenue court and are not maintainable before the civil court.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2007 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 24.5.2005 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Rev Singh seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant with a prayer that the Defendant be restrained from dispossessing the Plaintiff from plot measuring 200 sq. yards and 75 sq. yards ( as depicted in the site plan) in khasra No. 170, Village Sabhapur, Tehsil Seelampur, District North East Shahadara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) had been dismissed. Plaintiff claimed himself to the recorded bhumidar of the aforenoted suit property. He had carved out plots and sold them to some purchasers. Plaintiff had retained two plots measuring 200 sq. yards and 75 sq. yards for himself. He had made boundary wall of bricks around the said plots. Defendants being influential persons in collusion with the police threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff. Present suit was accordingly been filed.

2. Defendant No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte. Defendant No. 3 was the only contesting Defendant. It was stated that the Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. Defendant No. 3 has purchased a plot measuring 150 sq. yards from the son of the Plaintiff namely Bharat Singh who had represented himself to be the owner of the property having an equal share being a coparcener in the ancestral land. The sale consideration had been received by him. Physical possession of the said plot had been handed over to the contesting Defendant. Further contention was that the Defendant had also filed a suit against the Plaintiff and his son as both were creating a hindrance in the construction of the boundary wall which was purported to be made by the Defendant No. 3.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following five issues were framed:

1. Whether suit of Plaintiff is maintainable in its present form? OP Parties

2. Whether suit of Plaintiff is barred under Section 14(H) and (I) of the Specific Relief Act or under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure ? OP Parties.

3. Whether jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act? OP Parties.

4. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

5. Relief.

4. Oral and documentary evidence was led. The site plan produced by the Plaintiff and proved as Ex.PW-1/1 had been adverted to. Khatoni Ex.PW-1/2 for the year 1986-86 was not relied upon as it was not a certified copy. Site plan was also ignored as the maker of the document i.e. the architect has not come into witness box. Court was of the view that the Plaintiff himself admitted that he had sold a portion of Khasra No. 170 by carving out plots; further Plaintiff had also not given the details of the said purchasers; Plaintiff had failed to prove his case. Suit was dismissed.

5. This was affirmed in first appeal. Court was of the view that what the Plaintiff was actually seeking was a declaration of his bhumidari rights which was barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the DLRA). Suit was not maintainable; the first appellate court had returned the following finding:

7. Even though the trial court decided issues No. 1, 2 and 3 in favor of the Appellant but reading of the plaint goes to show that the Appellant basically wants a declaration that he is a bhumidhar in respect of the two plots which he allegedly retained for himself after carving the plots out of his hand by selling others. According to the written statement filed by the third Respondent had sold the suit plots to them through his son Shri Bharat Singh thus, the prayer made by the Appellant to seek an injunction order is virtually a prayer for declaration as bhumidhar of the suit property which relief can always be obtained by the Appellant by approaching Revenue Authority and in fact cannot be granted to the Civil Judge. Moreover, the averments made in the pla