SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
SMT. POONAM – Appellant
Versus
SH. DHARMENDER – Respondent
CS(OS) 756/2024 | I.A. 9301/2013 | I.A. 23269/2015 | I.A. 24444/2015



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Mr. Ayush Tomar, Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Mr. Jai Gopal, Mr. Hakikat Rai, Mr. Dhruv Goswami
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Adv with Mr. Hunny Singh and Mr. Ankit Parindiyal for D-1 to 8. Mr. Sunil Goel, Mr. Himanshu Goel, Mr. Dimple Aggarwal, Ms. Varsha for D-9 to 10.

The court determined that properties categorized as residential within the Lal Dora do not fall under the jurisdiction of Delhi Land Reforms Act, allowing the civil court to hear the suit.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Sections 50 and 185 - Bar on civil court jurisdiction over agricultural lands - Suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and declaration of rights in agricultural and residential properties denied by defendants on grounds of jurisdiction and limitation - The court found that some properties are residential and hence outside DLR Act’s jurisdiction - Plaintiff’s rights as an heir were upheld. (Paras 1-60)

(B) Agricultural Land and Succession - The DLR Act prioritizes male lineal descendants in the male line of descent for agricultural land - The court stressed that the inherent nature of properties should be examined to determine applicable jurisdiction, whereby land loses its agricultural character cannot fall under DLR Act jurisdiction. (Paras 15-20, 27-34)

(C) Maintainability of the Suit - The court ruled that civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes involving non-agricultural lands despite some agricultural holdings existing in the suit and cannot partially reject a plaint. (Paras 52-60)

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding property ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments on succession laws and claims. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court's analytical framework for plaint evaluation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. definitions of 'land' and 'holding' under dlr act. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. jurisdictional implications of land classification. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. interpretation of section 50 dlr act. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. effect of har naraini devi ruling on succession. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
8. civil court jurisdiction and dlr act applicability. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
9. clarification on residential land jurisdiction. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
10. maintaining suit as a whole under order vii rule 11. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
11. final observations before case listing. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)

1. There are two applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) - the first, I.A. 24756/2015, is filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 8; and the second, I.A. 38035/2024, is filed by defendant Nos 9 and 10. Both applications seek rejection of the plaint primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the suit, insofar as it relates to agricultural lands, is barred by law specifically under Section 50 and Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as DLR Act) and Section 83(c) of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, as the disputes, as such, fall outside the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. Secondly, the suit is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 . Given that the applicants’ interest is confined to specific agricultural lands and considering the statutory bars and jurisdictional limitations, it is submitted that the plaint deserves to be rejected at the threshold.

2. The facts of the case, as set out in the plaint, indicate that the plaintiff’s claim is based on the assertion that late Sh. Kanwal Singh was the owner of both agricultural and residential properties situated in the revenue estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi. The plaintiff has outlined the family lineage in support of her claim by presenting a pedigree chart in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, which is reproduced below:

Late Sh. Kanwal Singh

(expired on 18.07.1996)

|

------------------------------------------------

| |

Dhara Singh (expired nov’12) Brahm Prakash (d. 04.10.1982) – Smt Santosh (Wife, Remarried)

| |

----------------------------------- ---------------------------------

| | | | | Dharmender Ravinder Rajesh Jai Bhagwan Smt. Poonam (daughter)

(Defendants) (Plaintiff)

3. According to the plaint, the properties in question consist of agricultural land, plots in the extended Lal Dora Abadi, and plots/houses in the Old Lal Dora Abadi of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi. The properties are as follows:

i. Agricultural land measuring 30 Bighas and 12 Biswas out of Khasra No. 63/9 (4-16), 10 (3-05), 11 (4-17), 12 (4-16), 13 (2-08), 19 (2-08), 20 (4-16), 64/16 (2-02) 8b 62/22 Min (1-04) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi.

ii. Agricultural land measuring 23 Bighas & 12 Biswas out of Khasra No. 78/13 (2-04), 14 (3-04), 78/15 (0-08), 17 (4-16), 18 (2-16), 22 (4-00), 23 (3-06), 78/24 (0-03), 24 West (2-04) & 77/11 (0- 11) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi.

iii. Agricultural land measuring 6 Bighas and 9 Biswas out of Khasra No. 78/11 (0-02), 78/12 (0- 13), 78/13 (1-00), 18 (2-00), 78/19(0-04), 22(0- 18), 23 (1-10), 77/11 (0-02), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kanjhawala

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top