CS(OS) No.2329/1999 Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CS(OS) No.2329/1999

%

7^th September, 2012

RAVI SHANKAR SHARMA

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, Adv.

versus

KALI RAM SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Amit Jain, Adv. for D-6.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.

The subject suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition,

possession, rendition of accounts, injunction, etc. on the ground that the

suit property vested with Sh. Tulsi Ram, who was the grandfather of the

plaintiff and the father of the defendant no.1. As per the suit/plaint, plaintiff

has rights in the properties inherited by the defendant no.1 from his father,

and which properties are set out in para 4 of the plaint as under:

“(A) AGRICULTURAL LAND – 29 BIGHAS 5 BISWAS

(i) Khasra No.78/1

(3 Bighas 11 Biswas)

(ii) Khasra No.78/9

(4 Bighas)

(iii)Khasra No.78/10 (4 Bighas 5 Biswas)

(iv)Khasra No.78/11 (4 Bighas 5 Biswas)

(v) Khasra No.78/12 (4 Bighas 16 Biswas)

2012:DHC:5555

CS(OS) No.2329/1999 Page 2 of 6

(vi)Khasra No.81/6

(4 Bighas 16 Biswas)

(vii)

Khasra No.81/15 (3 Bighas 12 Biswas)

Situated in Village Rithala, Delhi-110085

(B) One Double storey house constructed over the plot

measuring about 75 sq. yds. bearing House No.161/164

situated at Village Rithala, Delhi.

(C) One double storey house constructed on plot bearing

No.67 measuring about 125 sq. yds. including one shop.

(D)

RESIDENTIAL PLOT

(i)

Plot No. 931 (02 Bighas 04 Biswas)

(ii)

Plot No.1012/1 (08 Biswas)

(iii)

Plot No.1013 (02 Bighas 11 Biswas)”

2.

The date of death of the grandfather, Sh. Tulsi Ram is

2.11.1980, and as noted in the order of this Court dated 4.9.2012. On

4.9.2012, the following order was passed:-

“I.A. No. 10268/2012 (u/O XIV R 2(2) CPC for

deciding the preliminary issues, by plaintiff)

As per the suit plaintiff claims right to the

properties of late Sh. Tulsi Ram who was said to have

expired on 02.11.1980 i.e after the passing of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956. I have put the counsel for the

plaintiff to notice of the judgments delivered in The

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Ors. vs.

Chander Sen Ors., 1986 AIR 1753 and Yudhister Vs.

Ashok Kumar, 1987 AIR 558 which say that if a

person inherited property from his paternal ancestor

after passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the

inheritance will be as a self-acquired property and not as

HUF property. Prima facie, therefore, the suit, on the

admitted facts, does not make out a legal entitlement

which needs to be adjudicated and, therefore, may have

to be dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff after having

gone through the aforesaid judgments on the matter

being passed over prays for further time to address

arguments.

2012:DHC:5555

CS(OS) No.2329/1999 Page 3 of 6

At request, adjourned to 7^thSeptember, 2012.”

3.

Issues in this case were framed on 21.10.2002 and whereafter,

the suit was to be listed for deciding of a preliminary issue under IA

No.10268/2012, and as per which, it had to be decided whether the

properties which are governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1985,

cannot be the subject matter of the present suit. Issue nos. 2 and 3 were

framed on this aspect. Therefore, plaintiff wanted to get the issues, which

were got framed on behalf of the contesting defendant of bar of the suit

under Section 185 of the Delhi land Reforms Act, 1985 decided as

preliminary issues.

4.

I have already reproduced the order dated 4.9.2012 above. It

is admitted that the defendant no.1 inherited the property from his