In matters of Bhumidari rights under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, male descendants exclusively inherit to the exclusion of daughters; established claims for coparcenary property must be specifically pleaded.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J.

I.A. 12065/2020 (of defendant no.2 under O-VII R-11 of CPC) and I.A. 1647/2021 (of the defendant no.1 under O-VII R-11 of CPC)

1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the applications filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of plaint.

PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT

2. The pleadings in the plaint relevant for deciding the present applications are set out hereinafter:

I. Plaintiff's father, late Shri Ram Gopal was the owner/Bhumidar of the land measuring 41 bighas and 9 biswas bearing Khasras no.20/6/1 (4-14), 20/20 (4-16), 21 (4-16), 32/1 (4-9), 10 (4-12), 4 (4-9), 5 (4-12), 6 (4-11), 7 (4-9), 26 (0-1), in the revenue estate of Village Iradat Nagar, Naya Bans, Delhi-110082 (`suit land'), which was an ancestral land.

II. Plaintiff's father died intestate on 7th March, 1993 leaving behind his wife and three children, the plaintiff and her two brothers, late Shri Priyavarat Mann and Raghuvinder Mann.

III. Shri Priyavarat Mann expired on 27th November, 2015. Defendant no.1 is his wife and defendants no.5, 6 and 7 are his children. Defendant no.4, Raghuvinder Mann is the unmarried brother of the plaintiff. Mother of the parties expired intestate on 23rd July, 2010.

IV. On 3rd March, 2011, the plaintiff discovered that the suit land had been clandestinely mutated by her brothers in their favour on 29th June, 1994, soon after her father's death, without her knowledge and consent.

V. Portion of the suit land admeasuring 4 bighas 14 biswas bearing khasra no.20/6/1 (4-14) was sold by the brothers of the plaintiff to the defendant no.3 company vide Sale Deed dated 16th November, 1995. Another portion admeasuring 14 bighas 1 biswas bearing khasras no. 20/20 (4-16), 21 (4-16), 32/1 (4-9) was sold to the defendant no.2 company vide Sale Deed dated 11th July, 2007 for a sum of Rs.1,16,80,000. Remaining portion of the suit land admeasuring 22 bighas 14 biswas bearing khasras no. 32/10 (4-12), 33/4 (4-9), 5 (4-12), 6 (4-11), 7 (4-9), 26 (0-1) was sold to the defendant no.1 vide Sale Deed dated 11th July, 2007 for a meagre sum of Rs.4,90,000.

VI. On 2nd July, 2012, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (`DLR Act') before the SDM seeking partition of the suit land. In the said suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed on behalf of the defendant no.2 on 28th March, 2017 on the ground that the SDM did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The application of the defendant no.2 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was allowed by the SDM vide order dated 4th December, 2019.

3. Accordingly, the present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Pass a decree for Declaration, declaring the alleged Sale Deed dated 16.11.1995 in favour of the Defendant No. 3 as illegal, invalid, null and void.

b) Pass a decree for Declaration, declaring that the alleged Sale Deeds dated 11.07.2007 in favour of the Defendant No.1 and 2 as illegal, invalid, null and void.

c) Pass a decree for Declaration that the Plaintiff is legally entitled to one-third share, right, title and interest in the suit land being one of the legal heirs of her late father Shri Ram Gopal.

d) Pass a decree of Cancellation of the sale deeds dated 16.11.1995 and 11.07.2007 in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 and the Defendant No. 8/Sub Registrar of the concerned area may be directed to cancel the aforesaid sale deeds dated 16.11.1995 and 11.07.2007 exec