IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Smt. Shikha Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) And 3 Others - Respondent
First Appeal No. - 21 of 2023
Decided On : 25-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of plaintiffs' claims and properties (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 96 CPC has been preferred by the plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 3.12.2022 passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) / FTC, Ghaziabad in O.S. no. 782 of 2021 Smt. Shikha Agrawal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) through LR's whereby, the plaintiffs suit has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration and permanent injunction regarding immovable property which is an agricultural land, which can only be granted by revenue Court.
2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff Smt.Shikha Agrawal filed O.S. no. 782 of 2021 against his real brother Sanjeev Garg(died during pendency of suit) with the averments that their father Satyaprakash Garg died on 12.5.2009 leaving behind his wife Smt. Premlata Garg, daughter Shikha Agrawal(plaintiff) and son Sanjeev Garg(defendant) as his legal heirs. It was further averred that the defendant died during pendency of suit on 8.3.2022 leaving behind his wife Smt.Vandana Garg and sons Shaurya Garg,Dhairya Garg. Smt.Premlata Garg also died on 22.3.2020. She further averred that on the death of her parents, she and the legal heirs of deceased defendant became the joint owners of all movable and immovable property left behind by her parents, in which she is having 1/2 share.
3. The plaintiff further averred that at the time of the death of her parents, they were having the following immovable properties:-
(i)An ancestral residential three storyed building and godown etc. having no. 24 and 25 (new no. 27 & 28) situated in Naya Ganj, Ghaziabad in which her father was having one third share and after his death, she and the defendant each became owners in possession of one sixth share.
(ii)Marriage home and banquet hall namely Imperial Garden and Heritage-Inn, which were constructed about 25 – 30 years back, situated on Hapur road, Ghaziabad, which were used as a single unit, which were having 10 foot high boundary, having two permanent gates, each having 5000 ft² covered area having permanent roof, air- conditioned banquet halls, having common toilets, five large guest rooms with attached toilets, office blocks, pantry in an area of about 3000 ft² covered area, etc. were situated. The marriage hall was constructed by his late father with Mahesh Chand Garg and Bharat Bhushan Garg which was completely residential, commercial and non-agricultural property situated in khasra No. 448 m, 526, 527, 544 and 543 m having area of 10,090 m² situated in village Dasna Ghaziabad. She further averred that the above property was situated within Ghaziabad city, on the Ghaziabad – Hapur road, which was residential and commercial property of her father, towards east of which was a developed multi-storeyed residential colony namely Ansal Garden Enclave developed by Ansal builders, towards west was Hapur road, thereafter densely populated Govind Puram residential scheme of Ghaziabad Development Authority which was established 30 – 35 years back, towards north was Ganga Puram residential colony and towards South was Ansal Garden Enclave and Flora Garden Enclave residential colonies. She further averred that in the above properties, her father was having one third share and after his death, she and the defendant each are co-owners of one sixth share.
(iii)Immovable property situated in Hindon civil airport, Ghaziabad which was situated within the city, which was residential and commercial, having khasra number 116 m, 125 m, 130/3, 131 m, 132 m, 133 m and 142, total area 18,850 m² situated in village Sikandarpur, Pargana Loni, tehsil and District Ghaziabad in which her father was having two thirds share, and after his death, she and the defendant each was having one third share. The above residential land was situated within Ghaziabad city, in between densely populated Rajendra Nagar and Hindon Air Force Station etc.
Civil courts retain jurisdiction over non-agricultural properties in disputes involving agricultural claims, and cannot dismiss the entire plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 without evaluating all claims o....
The civil court has jurisdiction to hear a suit for cancellation of a sale deed relating to converted land, even if the sale deed was executed before the conversion.
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is manifestly vexatious, does not disclose a clear right to sue, and is barred by limitation, particularly when the plaintiff does no....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.