PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

I.A. 11387/2018 (for addition and deletion of D-18)

1. The impleadment sought of Tehsildar of Kapashera is permitted. I.A. is disposed of.

I.A. 7129/2018 (Under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC)

2. This is an application for seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of Defendant No. 12. Admittedly, Defendant No. 12 never appeared in the matter, however, her legal heirs impleaded for the sake of completeness. I.A. is allowed in the above terms.

I.A. 7130/2018 (for setting aside abatement of the suit) & I.A. 7131/2018 (for delay of 300 days in filing the application)

3. Since the impleadment of the legal heirs of Defendant No. 12 is allowed, these two applications for abatement and delay become infructuous and the same are disposed of.

I.As. 14776/2015 (for delay in filing written statement) & 11984/2015 (Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC)

4. The written statements are taken on record and the applications are disposed of.

I.As. 6875/2015 & 8093/2015 (Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

5. The present applications have been filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds. The grounds taken in the Order VII Rule 11 application are two fold. Firstly, it is submitted that under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter, ‘DLR Act’) the appropriate authority for the Plaintiff to seek declaration is the Revenue Assistant constituted under the DLR Act. Secondly, it is also submitted that the Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction earlier and in the said suit, the relief of declaration for cancellation of mutation, agreement to sell, as also the Will there of were not sought.

6. The first and foremost submission of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Ld. counsel appearing of the Plaintiff is that the Revenue Assistant does not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of cancellation of mutation, cancellation of Will and agreement to sell as also the declaratory relief which has also been prayed for. It is his submission that the Revenue Assistant’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and by relying on the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Munni Devi & Ors. (2012) 188 DLT 589 (hereinafter, Ashok Kumar), it is submitted by him that the suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, Power of Attorney, etc., are all beyond the jurisdiction and powers of the Revenue Assistant.

7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Defendants rely upon the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Subhadara and Ors. v. Surender Singh & Ors. (hereinafter, ‘Subhadara’).

8. On this issue, the Ld. counsels for the parties have also taken the Court through the various entries in Schedule I of the DLR Act.

9. A perusal of the prayer in the present suit, reveals that the Plaintiff is seeking a declaration of the alleged Will executed by the father – Late Sh. Dheeraj Tyagi and consequently seeks declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of Defendants No. 15 to 17 and the registered gift deed in favour of Defendants No. 7 to 11 are null and void. The relief claimed is set out below:

“(i) pass the decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 to 11 and 15 to 17, thereby declaring that the Regd. Will executed by late Sh. Deeraj Tyagi bequeathing suit land in favour of defendants no. 1 to 4 and Sh. Puran Mal (since deceased) duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar-IX, Kapashera, New Delhi vide Registration No. 760, Book No. III, Vol. No. 460, on Pages 64&65 on 04.06.2009 is sham, inoperative, null & void document and the same does not confer any right and title upon the defendants no. 1 to 4 and Sh. Puran Mal (since deceased) and consequently, the documents of Sale Deeds executed by defendants no. 1 to 4 and late Sh. Puran Mal vide Registration No. 7740 in Addl Book No. 1, Vol. No. 5995 on pages 17 to 25 dated 15.07.2011 in favour of defendants no. 16 & 17 and another Sale Deed vide Registration No. 7742 in Addl. Book No. I, Vol. No. 5995