The sufficiency of evidence for ownership claims is determined at trial, not during a dismissal application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 3466/2022 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 69/2022

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated 13.09.2021 passed in CS No. 702/18, by which the learned Senior Civil Judge, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, has rejected the application of the petitioner-defendants herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"].

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 36 ["the plaintiffs"] filed the suit before the Trial Court on 02.11.2018, arraying the petitioners herein and the respondents No. 37 to 40 as defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners in possession of undivided shares in land measuring about 800 Bighas in various Khasra Nos. in village Gokulpur, Delhi-110094. As against the petitioners, the plaintiffs' principal claim is for a declaration against a sale deed executed by one M/s. G.S. Kashyap and Sons (HUF) in favour of the petitioner No.1 herein, and as also an injunction against the petitioners from creating third-party interests in the said land. The plaintiffs also made three applications for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

3. The petitioners filed a written statement on 12.12.2018 and thereafter also made an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the said application, the petitioners contended that the plaintiffs had filed no title documents in support of their claim of ownership, and had only filed revenue records which were insufficient to establish title. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs' claim of possession was false.

4. By the impugned order dated 13.09.2021, the learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, recording the following findings:

a) Although the Trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have not filed any registered documents or title documents pertaining to the suit property, it has been held that the sufficiency of the evidence placed by the plaintiffs is required to be considered at trial and not in an application for rejection of the plaint.

b) The Trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have made a categorical statement in the plaint that they are in possession of the suit property, and that the veracity of the said contention cannot be adjudicated in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

c) On the petitioners' contention regarding limitation, the Trial Court has found that it is a mixed question of law and fact, which must be considered after evidence.

d) The petitioner had also raised an argument regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 ["DLR Act"]. The said plea has also been rejected on the grounds that the plaintiffs had averred in the plaint that the suit property falls within the limits of the Municipal Corporation by reason whereof the DLR Act could not apply.

5. Mr. Gyaneshwar Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order suffers from a manifest error, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the insufficiency of the documents placed by the plaintiffs in support of their claim in respect of their title to the suit property. He points out that, by a separate order of the same date [13.09.2021], the Trial Court had rejected the applications of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour. Mr. Narayan submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 1