1. Bimla Devi, Plaintiff No.1 and her two daughters Mamta Dagar and Anita Sindhu, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 respectively, have filed this suit against Zile Singh and seven others for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are co-sharers in joint possession of 1/8th share out of 1/3rd share in the agricultural land comprising of Khewat No. 24, Rect. No.19 (in several Killa Nos. as set out in para 5 of the plaint) to the total extent of 144 Kanals 15 Marlas (hereinafter the ‘suit property’) one-third of which works out to 48 Kanals and 5 Marlas.

2. The Plaintiffs state that there existed a Joint Hindu Family (‘JHF’) consisting of Zile Singh (Defendant No.1) and his sons Raj Kapoor (Defendant No.2), Jagbir (Defendant No.3), Baljeet (Defendant No.4), Satish Kumar (Defendant No.5), Dan Singh (Defendant No.6) and Ram Naresh (Defendant No.7). It also included Shri Rajpal, the deceased son of Zile Singh who died on 31st March 1982. Plaintiff No.1 was married to Rajpal and Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born to her and Rajpal. It is stated that Defendant No.1 Zile Singh also had two daughters both of whom are married. The Plaintiffs contend that the common ancestor of the parties Shri Mohan Lal (i.e. father of Shri Zile Singh and the grandfather of late Shri Raj Pal) held the suit property and some other properties as well. After the death of Shri Mohan Lal, his coparceners inherited one-third share each in the suit property. It is stated that since it was a JHF coparcenary property, all coparceners including deceased Rajpal and Defendants 1 to 7 acquired right, title and interest in equal shares in the suit property to the extent of one-eighth share each in the said one-third share. It is stated that late Shri Rajpal had one-eighth share of that one-third share and the said share has now been inherited in equal shares by the Plaintiffs who are his Class I legal representatives in terms of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘HSA’). Thus it is contended that the Plaintiffs become co-sharers alongwith Defendants 1 to 7 in the suit property.

3. It is stated that a kareva marriage of Plaintiff No.1 with Defendant No.5 was performed after the death of Shri Rajpal but she has been staying with her daughters separately. It is stated that this did not take away the right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs in the suit property. The plaint states that the Defendants had started denying the right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs for about six-seven months prior to the filing of the suit and were threatening to alienate the Plaintiffs’ share in the suit property. Accordingly, the suit was filed seeking the aforementioned declaration.

4. A written statement was filed on behalf of Defendants 1 to 8 on 31st May 2005. A preliminary objection has been taken that the suit property is governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (‘DLRA’) which recognises bhumidhari rights. Under the DLRA, it is the Defendant No.1 who is the bhumidhar and neither the Plaintiffs nor any other Defendants have got any right, title or interest in the suit property. Any person who wishes to acquire bhumidhari rights had to be recognised as such under the DLRA and should seek remedies under the DLRA.

5. It is stated that Defendant No.1 had acquired bhumidhari rights to the extent of one-third share in the suit property at the time of commencement of the DLRA and was recognised as bhumidhar on the basis of his cultivatory possession of the suit property. It is stated that the concept of coparcenary JHF is not available under the DLRA and the HSA does not apply to the land in question. DLRA is a special Act which prevents fragmentation and, therefore, all other acts and provisions stood repealed under Section 2 of the DLRA. It is stated that no right of the Plaintiffs in the suit property ever existed and, therefore, no declaratory suit can be maintained by the Plaintiffs. It is stated that even the deceased Shri Rajpal had no rights in the suit property and, therefo