IMPORTANT POINT
The applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in determining the cause of action and limitation for a suit.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A.13229/2010 (under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of defendant No.8 seeking Rejection of Plaint) & I.A.17219/2010 (under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of defendant No.18 for Rejection of Plaint)

1. The defendant No.8 Shri Ramesh Chandra Aggarwal and defendant No.18 Shri Shyam Sunder Kanoria in their respective applications have sought for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

2. It is submitted in the applications that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Declaration, Cancellation of Documents and Injunction. The respective defendants have already filed their detailed Written Statement on record. The defendant No.8 has alleged that the plaintiff has filed the present Suit after fifteen years of the sale of the suit property to defendant No.8 on the ground that the suit land is ancestral and the respective fathers of the defendants had no right to sell the same.

3. It is submitted that in the similarly filed suits bearing Nos. CS(OS)2287/2009 tiled as Om Prakash and Ors. vs. Savita Jindal & Ors., and in CS(OS) No.1521/09 titled Shishpal & Another vs. Savita Jindal & Ors. the plaintiffs have been directed to file the appropriate Court Fee. The defendants and the relief sought in the above mentioned Suits are similar in nature and the plaintiffs are bound to pay the deficient Court Fee as ordered in CS(OS)2287/2009. It is further asserted that all these Suits are being represented by one lawyer on behalf of the villagers and the plaintiffs in all these suits are claiming themselves to be co-parceners in respect of the suit land.

4. It is further submitted that as per Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the Bhumidar is the absolute owner of the land, which he is cultivating. The time when the respective fathers of the plaintiffs sold their share in the suit land, they were shown as Bhumidars in the Revenue records. It is not disputed by the plaintiffs that their respective fathers were Bhumidars at the time when they sold their respective shares to defendant No.8 or his nominees. Further, after Notification of Delhi Land Reforms Act in the year 1954, the concept of ancestral land was removed and the person found to be cultivating the land were held be the Bhumidar and Asami. The rights of the sons of the Bhumidar of his share in the agricultural land would accrue only after his demise, as per Section 50 of the Act. The right of the daughter over her father's share in the agricultural land, has accrued only after the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.

5. The defendant No.8 has claimed that the plaint does not disclose on what basis the suit land is claimed to be a Joint Hindu Family. They themselves are claiming share in the suit land which shows that the suit land stood partitioned amongst the Bhumidars. It is, therefore, submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected as disclosing no cause of action.

6. The defendant No.18 in his application has asserted that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation since it has been filed after three years of execution and registration of the documents namely GPAs and Sale Deeds, despite them having knowledge of the same.

7. It is further asserted that the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of Court Fee for the reason that the relief of Declaration and Cancellation are different and liable to be valued separately but had been clubbed together.

8. Moreover, each Sale is a distinct and a separate transaction in favour of individual purchaser and they have been executed on different dates at different times. Each Sale Deed is in respect of a separate piece of land and each Sale Deed has to be valued separately at its market value. The plaintiff has calculated the Court Fee by consolidating the value of all the 23 Sale Deeds, which is not permissible. Likewise, each of the GPA has to be valued separately in terms of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. For this reliance has been placed on