The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in determining the jurisdictional issues and the share of the appellants/plaintiffs in the disputed properties.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2010 of the Addl. District Judge, Central-14, Delhi of dismissal of suit No.483/2009 filed by the appellants for partition of residential property situated in Village Malikpur, Post Office Ujwa, Tehsil Najafgarh, Delhi and agricultural land measuring 16 kila vide Khata Khatoni No.35/33, village Malikpur Zere, Tehsil Najafgarh, Delhi.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the appeal admitted for hearing. The counsel for the respondents gave a statement as recorded in the order dated 25th November, 2011, not to sell or alienate the suit property without permission of this Court. Though the parties were referred to mediation but the same remained unsuccessful. On application of the appellants/plaintiffs, the hearing of the appeal was expedited. The counsels have been heard.

3. The appellant no.1 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises on behalf of herself and her minor daughter appellant no.2 pleading:-

(a). that the respondent / defendant no.1 was the Karta of his family comprising of three sons i.e. the respondents /defendants no.2&3 and the deceased husband and father respectively of the appellants/plaintiffs and three daughters impleaded as respondents/defendants no.4 to 6;

(b). that the appellant no.1 was married to the son of the respondent / defendant no.1 on 26th February, 2001 and from this marriage appellant no.2 was born on 4th August, 2002;

(c). that the family of which the respondent / defendant no.1 is the Karta owns residential house situated in Village Malikpur and land measuring 16 kila (41.18 bighas) also in Village Malikpur Zere, Tehsil Najafgarh;

(d). that the husband/father of the appellants/plaintiffs died on 26th May, 2002 and the respondents/defendants threw out the appellants/plaintiffs out of the house in September, 2002;

(e). that the appellants/plaintiffs first filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction but during the pendency whereof a settlement was arrived at and the appellants/plaintiffs were permitted to occupy one room in the residential house and the respondents/defendants also agreed to take care of the other needs of the appellants/plaintiffs;

(f). however the respondents/defendants created obstructions in the peaceful existence of the appellants/plaintiffs in the said house, leading the appellants/plaintiffs to institute the suit claiming their share in the property; and,

(g). according to the appellants/plaintiffs they together have a 1/4th share in the said properties of the family.

4. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit on the grounds:-

(i). that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition of agricultural land in view of provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and partition of agricultural land could be sought only by a bhumidhar and before a Revenue Court; the appellants/plaintiffs were not a bhumidhar;

(ii). that the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC owing to the earlier suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs;

(iii). that the appellant no.1 was keeping the room given to her in pursuance to the settlement arrived at in the earlier suit locked and staying away from the house;

(iv). that the respondent / defendant no.1 was not acting as Karta of any Hindu Undivided Family and was carrying on agricultural activities and his sons respondents/defendants no.2&3 were carrying on their separate business and/or were employed;

(v). that the deceased husband/father of the appellants/plaintiffs was not having any joint family with his father and had no right to any of the properties of the respondent / defendant no.1;

(vi). that Shri Mauzi Ram father of the respondent / defendant no.1 was the bhumidhar of agricultural land and owner of the residential house; that the said Shri Mauzi Ram died in November, 1943 leaving, the respondent / defendant no.1 a