Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,PRATIBHA RANI, J.
RAM KISHORE .....Appellant
versus
JAI SINGH & ORS. ….Respondents
RFA(OS) 54/2008
Decided On : 20thJanuary,2012
Mr.Munish Tyagi, Advocate.
Mr.K.N.Popli, Advocate for R-2 to R-4. Mr.Surendra Kumar, Advocate for R-4. Mr.Anil Grover, Advocate and Ms.Divya Jain, Advocate for R-9, R-10, & R-16.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concise statements of material facts in pleadings, particularly in cases involving partition of land and ownership claims.
Headnote:
Partition - Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 - Section 55, Section 185 - The court discussed the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, particularly Section 55 which confers the power to sue for partition of a holding, and Section 185 which specifies the courts with jurisdiction. The court highlighted the distinction between land and holding, and emphasized the requirement for concise statements of material facts in pleadings. The judgment was set aside due to incorrect application of the law, but the suit was ultimately dismissed due to vague pleadings and lack of averments regarding settlement records.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought partition of properties in a village, claiming ownership by the great-grandfather. However, the suit was dismissed due to lack of maintainability and vague pleadings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit seeking partition was not maintainable under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 and emphasized the need for concise statements of material facts in pleadings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the suit under the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 and the adequacy of the pleadings, particularly regarding settlement records and ownership claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between land and holding, the requirement for concise statements of material facts in pleadings, and the need for clarity in ownership claims and settlement records.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Vide impugned judgment dated May 20, 2008, CS(OS) 375/2001 has been dismissed on two reasons. The first reason is the finding return that the suit seeking partition of land in village Alipur was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1970 (2) SCC 841 Hatti vs. Sunder Singh. The second reason is that no document was filed nor in the pleading any reference was made to a document of title in the name of the ancestor on whose death partition was prayed for.
2. Appellant Ram Kishore son of Jai Singh sought partition of five properties, delineated in site plans marked „A? to „E? annexed with the plaint, on the plea that the great grand-father of the plaintiff and the common ancestor of RFA (OS) 54/2008 Page 1of 7 defendant No.1 to No.8 i.e. Mam Raj was the owner of the said properties. Defendant No.9 to No.16 were impleaded inasmuch as certain portions of the properties, of which partition was sought, had purchased the same from defendants No.1 to No.8.
3. It is pleaded in the plaint, as per para 8, that the total land, at different sites, as reflected in the plans marked „A? to „E?, ad-measures 5849 sq.yds. In para 12, it is pleaded that the plot as per plan marked „A? ad-measures 206 sq.yds. In para 13, it is pleaded that the plot as per plan marked „B? ad-measures 408 sq.yds. In para 14, it is pleaded that the largest plot as per plan marked „C? ad-measures 4530 sq.yds. In para 24 and para 25 it is pleaded that the plots admeasuring 550 sq.yds and 200 sq.yds. are as per site plan marked „D? and „E?.
4. It needs to be highlighted that in the plaint, we do not find any averment on the point: Whether the aforesaid lands are within the abadi site of the village or are constituting land within the holding of late Mam Raj. Qua land as per plan marked „C?, averments in para 14 read as follows: „Thatbigger property adjacent to Phirni was also ancestral plot measuring 4530sq. yds. Covered with Boongas, thorny bushes, Sarkandas and wild plants. The said property is shown in site plan
5. If not for others, pertaining to the plot of land as per marked„C?attachedto theplaint.? plan marked „C?, it is apparent that the land in question is agricultural land. We say so for the reason it is pleaded in para 14 that the said land is adjacent to phirni and is covered with boongas, thorny bushes, sarkandas and wild plants. It is not pleaded that the said land is within the phirni. We all understand that the phirni is the boundary within which the village abadi exists.
6. In the plaint reference has been made to two plots ad-measuing 120 sq.yd. and 130 sq.yd. in para 6, and in respect of said two plots it is stated that they are situated in the abadi of village Alipur in Khasra No.894 (No claim to partition these lands has been made and it appears that the intention to plead said facts is to show that when the settlement took place in the year 1908, these two plots were allotted within the phirni comprised in Khasra No.894). With respect to the five lands as per plans marked „A? to „E?, in respect whereof partition is sought, no averment has been made as to in which khasra these lands are situate. There are no averments that these lands are within the village abadi site or whether these lands are agricultural lands. In which khasra number these lands are situate? Nothing has been stated. In which settlement record it stands recorded that Mam Raj was the owner of these lands, has not been pleaded.
7. Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 confers the power upon a bhoomidar to sue for partition of a holding. Land has been defined in Sub-Section 13 of Section 3 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 as under:-
“(13) “land” except in sections 23 and 24, means land held or occupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming and includes –
(a) Buildings appurtenant thereto,
(b) Village abadis,
(c) Grovelands,
