I.A. No.5580/2010 (under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by D-3, D-4 & D-6) & CS(OS) 1809/2009

1. The present application has been filed by defendants No. 3, 4 & 6 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ seeking rejection of the plaint. Contention is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is barred under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is also barred by the principle of res-judicata. Limitation is also a hurdle in the way of the plaintiffs. On all the aforenoted grounds, the suit cannot proceed and the plaint is liable to the rejected.

2. There is no doubt to the settled legal proposition that to deal with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code it is the averments which are made in the plaint and the documents annexed along with the plaint which alone have to be adhered to and the defence sought to the set up by the defendant is not material for dealing with such an application.

3. Record discloses that

(i) Shiv Sheodan Singh was the owner of certain lands in village Rithala, Rohini. Pursuant to an Award which was passed in 1980-1980, a portion of his land was acquired and compensation was received.

(ii) Sheodan Singh had two sons i.e. Prithi Singh and Shivraj Singh. Prithi Singh died in 1949. Shivraj Singh died in 1948.

(iii) Prithi Singh left behind three sons Jai Pal Singh, Mahendra Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh. Chandra Pal Singh died issueless. Jai Pal Singh died in 2007. He left behind sons and grandsons. Mahendra Pal Singh has been arrayed as defendant No. 7 in the present suit.

(iv) Shivraj Singh left behind two sons namely Ran Singh and Ami Singh. Ran Singh died in 1999. Ami Singh died in 1996. Both Ran Singh and Ami Singh left three sons each.

4. The pedigree chart showing the descendants of Sheodan Singh has been detailed in the plaint.

5. The plaint discloses that

(1) CS (OS) No.1299/1985 was filed by Ran Singh and Ami Singh (sons of Shivraj Singh). This was a suit for permanent injunction. The defendants were Mahendra Pal Singh, Jai Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh (the three sons of Prithi Singh). The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of khasras No. 193, 208, 209 & 210 of the land located in village Rithala. An ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs which was subsequently set aside. The suit stood abated on 09.04.2001. Appeal against this order was dismissed on 29.01.2007. This order has become final.

(2) CS (OS) No. 1159/2001 was thereafter filed by Mahendra Pal Singh, Jai Pal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh (claiming through Prithi Singh). This was a suit for partition and possession. The properties involved in this suit were the same i.e. khasras No. 189, 190 193, 208, 209, 210 & 211 of village Rithala. The defendants in this suit were three sons of Ran Singh and three sons of Ami Singh (claiming through Shivraj Singh).

6. The fate of CS (OS No. 1159/2001 was that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed by the defendants. The plaint stood rejected on 30.05.2009. This was a speaking order. There were two reasons for rejection of the plaint. The first was that there was no cause of action and the second ground was that the suit was barred by limitation. This order has since become final. It was not challenged.

7. The position at law is that the rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code.

8. Section 2 (2) reads as under:-

2. Definitions.

In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within 1 [* * *] section 144, but shall not include-

(a) any adjudicat