A decree obtained in an ex-parte judgement remains effective unless specific grounds to challenge it, as per legal standards, are satisfied; mere allegations of fraud are inadequate.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

I.A. 20653/2022

1. This is an application seeking exemption from service of advance notice of the suit to the defendants.

2. As in my opinion, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed as being not maintainable, the application is disposed of as infructuous.

CS(OS) 765/2022 & I.A. 20652/2022

3. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff praying for the following reliefs:

"(a) Grant a decree of declaration thereby declaring the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 in C.S. (Os) No.2492 Of 2008 Titled As "Shri Prakash & Ors. Vs. Shri Dharam Pal & Ors" passed by this Hon'ble Court as null, void and non-est;

(b) Declare the Sale Deed dated 10.05.2007 as valid, legally and lawfully executed and binding upon the parties."

4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging therein that he along with the defendant no.14 had purchased agricultural land total measuring 5 Bighas and 8 Biswas out of Khasra No.605, Khatouni Khata No.108, situated in Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, Delhi- 110094, by way of a Registered Sale Deed dated 10.05.2007, for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh only) from the defendant nos.11 to 13. It is asserted that the plaintiff is in actual, peaceful, physical possession of the said agricultural land.

5. It has further been asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant nos.1 to 10 are the descendents of one Late Shri Niyadar, son of Late Shri Chandan, having agricultural land falling in Khasra No.609, Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, Delhi, whereas the defendant nos.11 to 13 are the sons of one Late Shri Niyadar, son of Late Shri Antram, who had agricultural land falling in Khasra No. 605, Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, Delhi. Late Shri Niyadar, son of Late Shri Chandan, and Late Shri Niyadar, son of Late Shri Antram, are not in any way related to each other by way of blood and/or relationship.

6. It is asserted that the forefathers of the defendant nos.11 to 13 were declared Bhumidar in respect of the agricultural land forming part of Khasra No.605 mentioned hereinabove, while the forefathers of defendant nos.1 to 10 were declared Bhumidar in respect of only Khasra No.609 mentioned hereinabove.

7. It is further asserted in the plaint that upon the death of Shri Niyadar, son of Late Shri Antram, the share of Shri Niyadar in the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.605 was duly mutated in the name of the defendant nos.11 to 13 by way of an order dated 30.11.2006. The same was challenged by the Predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos.1 to 10 by filing an appeal under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, claiming themselves to be the Bhumidar in respect of the land forming part of the Khasra No.605 and challenging the title of the defendant nos.11 to 13 to the said land.

8. It is asserted that the defendant nos.11 to 13 sold the plot of land to the plaintiff and the defendant no.14 by way of a registered sale deed dated 10.05.2007.

9. The plaintiff asserts that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos.1 to 10 filed a Civil Suit, being CS(OS) No.2492/2008, titled Shri Prakash & Ors. v. Shri Dharam Pal & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the "said suit"), before this Court, seeking inter alia declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.05.2007 executed by the defendant nos.11 to 13 in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.14. It is asserted that the said suit, however, was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant nos.1 to 10 without seeking the declaration of their title. The said suit was filed on the basis of a single entry of Khasra /Girdawari of possession for the years 1982-83. The plaintiff asserts that the said suit was absolutely false and frivolous and contained concocted averments patently contrary to the facts.

10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff pleads that without claiming their own title to the land, the said suit was not maintainable under Sections