Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1511
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
SUBHADARA - Appellant
Versus
SURENDER SINGH & ORS - Respondents
RSAs 255, 256, 259/2015
Decided on : 23-03-2016
Mr.Vipin K. Singh, Advocate
Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate with Ms.Yamini Khurana, Mr.B.S. Mathur, Mr.Rajat Mathur & Mr.Mahavir Singh, Advocates for R1 to R4.
Headnote:
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Section 3(12), 50, 185, 186 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Suit for partition - Rejection of a plaint - Suit is time barred - Land was mutated - Scope of - Claim by successors of T - Suit was not filed within three years after the death of late T - Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court held the suit is barred by limitation - Suit has not been filed within a period of three years from the date of death of her father or within three years from the date from which the mutation - Defense of a party may not be relevant for the purposes of rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC - Suit was also hit by section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act - Provision of section 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act does not come to the rescue of the appellant - Appeals are without merits - Same are dismissed.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Section 8, 50,185, 186 - Appellant claimed that after the death of late T.C.Mann, she and the respondents became co-owners - Suit is dismissed by the Trial Court as the suit was barred by limitation - Mutation of the land has been carried out in favour of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 - Plaintiff is seeking a declaration of ownership over a portion of the suit property - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is limited only to deciding issues of title which are referred to it by the Revenue Court - Appellant could not have directly approached the Civil Court for declaration of title - Suit preferred by the appellant is not maintainable under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act - Mere suit for declaration and permanent injunction cannot lie in respect of property which is not partitioned by metes and bounds amongst co-sharers - For annulment of mutation, appeal can be preferred before the revenue courts - Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were right in holding that the suit is barred by limitation - Suit was also hit by section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and the same is dismissed.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR , J.
CM Appl.No.12760/2015 in RSA No.259/2015
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
Caveat No.743/2015 in RSA No.259/2015
Mr.B.S.Mathur, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. The caveat is discharged.
RSA 255/2015, 256/2015 & 259/2015
1. All the appeals are taken up together and a common judgment is being passed.
2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi in RCA Nos.58/2014, 59/2014 and 60/2014 whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Suit Nos.298/11, 299/11 and 300/11 dismissing the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been upheld and affirmed.
3. The appellant is the sister of respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and daughter of respondent No.4; respondents No.1 to 3 being her real brothers whereas respondents No.5 and 6 are her real sisters.
4. The appellants and the respondents are legal representatives of late Tek Chand Mann, who was a Bhumidar with respect to land falling in various khasra numbers detailed in part (2) of the plaint. Aforesaid late Tek Chand Mann died on 13.10.2002 intestate.
5. The appellant filed a suit No.299/11 for the following reliefs:
“(i) Declaring the sale deed dated 18.01.2000 alleged to be executed by Sh.Tek Chand in favour of the defendant no.1 in respect of the land bearing khasra no.5/22/2 min (0-4), 17/2min(0-11), 17/3(4-15), 17/9min(0-11), 17/8(4-14), 17/26(0-2). 48/13min(4-8) total land measuring 15 bighas 5 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Iradat Nagar @ Naya Baas, Delhi which is registered as registration no.716, Addl. Book no.1 Vol. No.931 on pages 34-37 registered on 21.01.2000 in the Office of Sub-Registrar VI-A, Pitampura, Delhi as Null & Void being having no effect upon the rights of the Plaintiff.
(ii) Declaring the Mutation Report bearing No.M-1049/99-2000 dated 03.04.2000 effected on 26.05.2000 and Mutation Report No.M-1026/2003-04 dated 26.05.2004 effected on 10.06.2004 as illegal and Null & Void being having no effect upon the right of the Plaintiff.
(iii) Restraining the defendant no.1 his agents, associates from dispose off/sale and to create third party interest in respect of the land measuring No.5/22/2min(0-4), 17/2min(0-11), 17/3(4-15), 17/9min(0-11), 17/8(4-14), 17/26(0-2), 48/13min(4-8), total land measuring 15 bighas 5 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Iradat Nagar @ Naya Baas, Delhi and Khasra no.239(1-3) and 267(0-19) situated in the Lal Dora at Village Iradat Nagar @ Naya Baas, Delhi being joint property of the Plaintiff & Defendants.”
6. The case of the appellant is that after the death of late Tek Chand Mann, she and the respondents became co-owners/co-Bhumidars with respect to the suit land. In the year 2009, while applying for a loan, the appellant obtained a copy of the khatauni of the land and it was only then that she learnt that the mutation of the land has been carried out in favour of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 on 26.05.2014. It was averred in the plaint that the appellant was kept in dark and the mutation authorities were not made known the fact that the appellant along with other respondents, also had become co-owners/co-bhumidars on the death of late Tek Chand Mann. It was further learnt that the land in question was transferred by way of sale deed in favour of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 on 18.01.2000.
7. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of plaint on the ground that from the statement in the plaint itself, the suit was barred by the Delhi Land Reforms Act and the Law of Limitation.
8. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 drew the attention of the Trial Court to the fact that their predecessor, late Tek Chand Mann, died on 13.10.2002. The suit property was transferred in the name of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in the year 2000 and the land was mutated
