Point of Law : It is trite that court while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to consider contents of plaint and documents relied upon by plaintiff whereas defence disclosed in the written statement is irrelevant.

ORDER :

I.A.11419/2020 (by the DDA under Order VII Rule 11 read with Orders VI and VII read with Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit)

1. This order shall dispose of an application moved by the defendant No.1/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 read with Orders VI and VII read with Section 151 CPC.

2. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against 17 defendants. Defendant No.1 is the DDA, defendant No.2 is New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), defendants No.3 & 4 are the deceased brothers of plaintiff (through L.Rs.) and defendants No.5 to 16 are private defendants, and defendant No.17 is the Union of India through Ministry of Rehabilitation Department.

3. The “suit property” is a plot bearing No.3400, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 695 sq. yds. (approximately) and consists of built up shops and rooms upto the First Floor as depicted in the annexed site plan. The private defendants are stated to be the tenants inducted into the premises by the father of the plaintiff. The declaration sought by the plaintiff is to the following effect :

“A) Decree of declaration may please be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 and 17 thereby declaring that plaintiff have right, title and interest in the plot bearing no.3400, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi -110008 admeasuring 695 square yard as shown in the site plan by adverse possession as father of plaintiff had already acquired the title in the above said plot and after his death plaintiff is entitled for the same.”

4. The injunctions sought are to restrain defendant No.1/DDA and the defendant No.17 to not take coercive action to dispossess the plaintiff or interfere with his possession of the suit premises, with further directions to remove the locks from the portion of the suit property which have been placed by the defendant No.1/DDA.

5. In the application, the Defendant No.1/DDA has contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected on three grounds viz., that the essential ingredients for a claim of adverse possession have not even been pleaded in the plaint and therefore, no cause of action has been disclosed; that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by time and finally, that requisite court fees has not been paid. Rejection has also been sought on the ground that the plaint has not been properly filed as it incorporates within itself the law laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court, which was against the provisions of Order VI Rule 7 CPC.

ARGUMENTS

6. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1/DDA, has relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court :

(i) Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and Ors.(2004) SCC OnLine SC 505 - Para 11;

(ii) T. Anjanappa & ors. Vs. Somalingappa & Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 550: Paras 12, 13,14,15,16,17,18 19 and 20

(iii) Annakili Vs. A. Vedanayagam & others; (2007) 14 SCC 308: paras 24; 25 and 26

(iv) L.N. Aswathama and Ors. vs. P.; (2009) SCC OnLine SC 844: Para 17

(v) Chatti Konati Rao & Ors, Vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao; (2010) 14 SCC 316: Paras 12, 13

(vi) M. Venkatesh and Others Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority - (2015) 17 SCC 1 : Paras 14, 18,19,20,21,22

(vii) Dagadabai (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Abbas alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari; (2017) 13 SCC 705 : paras 16, 17, 18 and 19

(viii) Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine SC 975: Para 56

(ix) Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, (2020) 11 SCC 263

7. According to the learned counsel for the defendant No.1/DDA, when a plea of adverse possession was set up, it was necessary to first disclose who the true owner was, since the plea of adverse possession can be set up only against the true owner. It has been submitted, relying on T. Anjanappa (supra) and other decisions, that possession of whatsoever length could not be understood to be adverse possession unless there was a denial of title of the true ow