The Sanad issued under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 conveys absolute title and cannot be challenged in a civil court. The plaintiff's attempt to seek partition without seeking a declaration of right in the property was impermissible.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 27-10-2021 passed in I.A. No. 741 of 2018 in O.S. No. 139 of 2018 by the VIII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. Petitioners herein are defendants 17 and 18 in the suit. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff–1st respondent and defendants 17 and 18-revision petitioners is Smt. Mummal Devi, who is the Grand-mother of plaintiff came to India as refugee with her two sons Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani (elder son) and Vishandas Kanwarmal Lahkwani (younger son). Being a refugee migrated to India from Pakistan and such refugees were eligible to make claims before the Government of India for allotment of suitable land under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (in short “1954 Act”) the elder son, Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani made a claim for grant of Sanad allotment under the provisions of 1954 Act. His claim was considered and allotted land to an extent of Ac. 64.10 gts. in Sy. Nos. 317, 329, 330, 332, 333 of Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District, (in short “suit schedule property”) by way of Sanad document dated 17-04-1968.

3. The Plaintiff and Defendant nos. 1 to 7 are family members of Vishandas Kanwarmal Lahkwani (younger son) and thus they are jointly entitled to claim ½ share in the suit schedule property for the reason the Sanad was allotted to elder son as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family. It has come on record that the suit schedule property was sold by the Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani (elder son) through his GPA holder vide registered Document No. 763/1968, dated 20-06-1968.

4. Suit O.S. No. 139 of 2018 was filed for partition and separate possession of 1/8th share of the plaintiff-1st respondent herein based on Sanad document dated 17-04-1968. In the suit, the younger son Vishnadas Kanwarmal Lakhwani is D-1 (since deceased), his wife is D-2, their sons D-3, D-4, D-5 and daughters D-6 and D-7. The Plaintiff as one of the sons of D-1 and D-2 has filed the suit. Defendants 8 to 13 are the wife and children of Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani (elder son). Defendants 14 to 25 are the successors-in-title of A. Rama Swamy and K. Ramamurthy who had purchased the suit schedule property from the (elder son) thru his GPA holder.

5. The above I.A. filed by defendants 17 and 18, under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action in the suit and the suit is barred by law of limitation and not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 36 of 1954 Act, r/w. Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1977, was dismissed, aggrieved thereby, present revision is filed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants 17 and 18) contended:

(i) that the land allotted under Sanad was granted to the elder son Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani and the claim now being made after 50 years that the grant was in the nature of Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is nothing but vexatious litigation.

(ii) that Sanad document is unambiguously clear that it was an individual grant and even otherwise any claims or disputes arising therefrom will have to be worked out under 1954 Act, which the legal heirs of younger son failed to do so.

(iii) that execution of the sale deed by the elder son thru his GPA holder in the year 1968 itself is notice to all stake holders including the heirs of the younger son, the sale deed being a public document.

(iv) that the relief sought in the suit is in the nature of declaration as to whether the Sanad allotment was a grant as Karta of HUF or it is an individual allotment, without seeking the relief of declaration and without there being any enforceable right in the suit schedule property, the suit for partition and separate possession