MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Mansa Ram against the judgment and decree dated July 08, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No.2077/2009 whereby the plaint filed by the appellant has been rejected by allowing application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC being I.A.No.3733/2010 filed by the respondents. Consequently, it was also ordered that the suit as well as all pending applications are also dismissed.

2. The relevant brief facts of the matter are that the appellant had filed the suit for declaration praying for cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated September 05, 2003 and the sale deed dated November 03, 2006 against the respondents, namely, Tilak and Sanjeev Kumar. The appellant claims that he has been in the continuous and undisturbed possession of 6 Bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.296/112/1 situated in the revenue estate of Vill.Khajuri Khas, New Delhi.

3. The case set up by the appellant against the respondents is that respondent No.1 had obtained Power of Attorney dated September 05, 2003 by fraud and misrepresentation holding out that under the power he would manage and look after the lands since the appellant was of old age. The respondent No.1 had executed the sale deed dated November 03, 2006 on behalf of the appellant by using the fraudulently obtained Power of Attorney. The specific averments are made in paras 14 to 23 and paras 30, 31 & 39 of the plaint.

4. After the service of summons and filing a written statement, the respondents filed an application being I.A.No.3733/2010 under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, mainly, on the grounds that the suit filed by the appellant is barred by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “Reforms Act”) and the other revenue laws. It was stated in the application that the appellant had admitted in the proceedings dated March 16, 2007 before the Tehsildar (Seelampur), Delhi that he had no objection if the mutation of the suit property was executed in the name of respondent No.2, as he had already received the sale consideration, and the possession of the suit property was given to respondent No.2 and on the basis of the said proceedings, the orders had been passed for carrying out necessary mutation in the revenue records in favour of respondent No.2 who was also granted permission to raise the boundary wall of the suit property by the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Seelampur, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi vide order dated December 15, 2007. A mere perusal of the said order would show that the said land is an agricultural land, therefore, any grievance with regard to the suit property would not confer any jurisdiction upon this Court. Thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

5. The application was opposed by the appellant. It is not denied by the appellant that the Revenue Courts under the Reforms Act have the jurisdiction to determine the issues as set out in Schedule-I to the Reforms Act, however, the present case is not covered under the said jurisdiction as the appellant’s suit is only for declaration of cancellation of the General Power of Attorney dated September 05, 2003 which had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and in consequence to that, the sale deed dated November 03, 2006 which was registered in favour of respondent No.2 by playing a fraud, for which the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the said issue. The issue of

fraud and cancellation of document can only be decided by the Civil Courts. The appellant is not seeking any declaration of Bhumidari rights and claiming ownership in any manner.

1. 6. The learned Single Judge vide order dated July 08, 2011 allowed the respondents’ application and rejected the plaint of the suit filed by the appellant, holding that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to directly decide the question of title in the matter pertaining to the Reforms Act, as the appellant is seekin