The court held that the devolution of agricultural land is governed by the DLR Act, not the Hindu Succession Act, denying the plaintiff's claim as a coparcener.

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

CS(OS) 10/2023 & I.A. 14090/2023 (under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC by defendant nos. 1 to 13)

1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall decide the application filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 to 13 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘ CPC ’) seeking rejection of plaint.

1.1. This suit has been filed seeking partition of the agricultural land falling in Village Hiranki and forming part of the estate of late Shri Balbir Singh. The details of the said agricultural land are set out at paragraph 1 of the plaint i.e., property area bearing 40-18 bighas in Khata Khatauni no. 107/97, Khasra no. 165, 197, 198 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205 situated in Village Hiranki Dist. Narela (NW) Delhi-110036 (‘subject agricultural land’).

1.2. It is stated in the plaint that the subject agricultural land was the exclusive property of the father of the plaintiff i.e. late Shri Balbir Singh, who died intestate on 15.03.1980. The exclusive ownership of late Shri Balbir Singh is pleaded at paragraph nos. 1, 4 and 6(I) of the plaint.

1.3. It is stated that late Shri Balbir Singh was survived by his widow, five (5) sons and four (4) daughters. It is stated that thereafter his widow Smt. Sheelawati also passed away in the year 1995.

1.4. It is stated that in these facts the subject agricultural land has devolved upon his nine (9) children and thus, the plaintiff has filed this suit claiming 1/9th undivided share in the said land.

1.5. It is stated that plaintiff has acquired proprietary rights in the subject agricultural land after Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘Hindu Succession Act’) was amended in the year 2005. It is stated that the plaintiff has a right to maintain the present suit for partition in her capacity as a coparcener. The relevant pleadings in the plaint to this effect read as under: -

“6. (I) That the self-acquired agricultural land property (suit property), area bearing 40-18 bighas in Khata Khatauni no. 107/97, Khasra no. 165, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205 situated in Village Hiranki Dist. Narela (NW) Delhi-110036, exclusively belong to Late Balbir Singh, the lawful owner of the aforesaid suit property and the father of the Plaintiff and all the Defendants to this suit.

6. (II) That in the year 1980, the father of the Plaintiff, Late Balbir Singh expired intestate, and thereafter, the mother of the Plaintiff, Late Seelvati W/o Late Balbir Singh also expired intestate in 1995, leaving behind the following legal heirs as mentioned in para 5 of the suit. However, no immediate partition, by metes and bounds took place following the death of Late Balbir Singh and Late Seelvati. Therefore, in the view of the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , in the year 2005, recognizing and treating the daughter as coparcener equivalent to the son and further providing that partition before that is recognized only by way of a decree of the court or by a registered deed of partition, which eventualities are not there in the present case, as such no partition has taken place and the property forming the subject matter of the present suit are to be partitioned as if the same have not been partitioned in any manner in the eye of law till date, except in the manner as mentioned in para III of the present suit, which does not have any effect of the rights of the Plaintiff to seek the partition of the properties as prayed for in the present suit.

8. It is submitted that the Plaintiff became co-parcener with respect to the aforesaid property since birth, and in view of the amendment in section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , treating and recognizing a daughter as a coparcener in the proper