Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
SHRI ISHWAR SINGH DECD. THROUGH LRS. & ORS. - Appellants
versus
SHRI SURAJ BHAN & ANR. - Respondents
RSA No. 44 of 2012
Decided On : 28-09-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. V.K.Mishra, Advocate
Headnote:
CPC - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Sections 11, 13, 33 - The court discussed the validity of ex parte Mutation Order, transfer of bhumidari rights, and possession of the suit land. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the nature of the Agreement to Sell, the validity of the Will, and the possession of the suit land. The final decision dismissed the second appeal, finding no substantial question of law.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership and possession of a 1/4th share of land in Delhi. The respondents sought declaration of invalidity of an ex parte Mutation Order and injunction against the appellants from transferring the land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held the suit was barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and that the respondents failed to prove possession and entitlement to the benefit of the Transfer of Property Act. The first appellate court reversed this judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the ex parte Mutation Order, the transfer of bhumidari rights, and the possession of the suit land. The court also addressed the applicability of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and the nature of the Agreement to Sell.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act as the disputes were not covered under the Act. It also found that the Agreement to Sell was not a sale deed and did not require the buyer's signature. The court rejected the argument that the Will was valid and found that possession had been transferred to the respondents.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/defendants impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 3.1.2012 by which the first appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court. The Trial Court vide its Judgment dated 1.3.2001 had dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the suit land being 1/4th share of land comprised in Khasra no. 57/23/1(2-6), 24(4-10), 25(4-16), 67/1(4-8), 10(4-16), 11(4-16), 68/6(4-9), and 15(4-9) admeasuring 34 bighas and 10 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Lampur, Delhi. As a result of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed.
2. By the suit the respondents/plaintiffs sought declaration of invalidity of the ex parte Mutation Order dated 20.5.1996 of the revenue authority in favour of appellants/defendants which was passed without any notices being issued to the respondents/plaintiffs. By the mutation order the appellants/defendants succeeded in showing the suit land in their names as legal heirs of their father Sh. Khazan Singh. Injunction was also prayed in the suit by the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants/defendants from transferring the suit land to any third person or causing any illegal interference in the peaceful possession of the suit land with the respondents/plaintiffs.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs pleaded that Sh. Khazan Singh, father of the appellants/defendants was the owner of the suit land. On 10.10.1990 Sh. Khazan Singh transferred his bhumidari and title rights in the suit land to the father of the respondents/plaintiffs, namely, Sh. Karam Singh. With respect to the transfer, Sh. Khazan Singh executed the usual documents being the agreement to sell/Ex.PW1/1, general power of attorney/Ex.PW1/2, receipt (registered before the Sub-Registrar)/Ex.PW1/3 and Will (registered before the Sub-Registrar) Ex.PW1/4. Under these documents Sh. Karam Singh the father of the respondents/plaintiffs received possession of the suit land from Sh. Khazan Singh the father of the appellants/defendants. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the appellants/defendants illegally and without knowledge of the respondents/plaintiffs, and without notice to the respondents/plaintiffs, got the share of Sh. Khazan Singh mutated in their names in the revenue record vide mutation serial no. 457 dated 20.5.1996 and which order was illegal. It was then pleaded that respondents/plaintiffs only came to know about the Mutation Order on 25.1.1997 when they obtained copy of khatauni of the year 1989-1990 pertaining to the suit land. It is further pleaded in the plaint that there could not be mutation order of the suit land in favour of the appellants/defendants because the father of the appellants/defendants had transferred his bhumidari rights to the father of the respondents/plaintiffs under the documentation dated 10.10.1990 and which also transferred possession of the suit land to Sh. Karam Singh after receiving the valuable consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. Accordingly, in the suit, the following reliefs were prayed:-
“(a) A decree for declaration may be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of the defendants vide case No. NT(N) M-611/95-96 dated 20-5-96 entered at Serial No. 457 pertaining to the 1/4th share of Bhumidari rights of Khazan Singh son of Bharat Singh in favour of the defendants in respect of the land forming part of Khasra Nos. 57/23/1(2-6), 24(4-10), 25(4-16), 64/1 (4-8), 10(4-16), 11(4-16), 68/6(4-9) and 15(4-9) situated in the revenue estate of Village Lampur Delhi is fraudulent, wrong and illegal and is liable to be cancelled and it does not effect the rights of the plaintiffs in any manner.
(b) As a consequent
