$~7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 14^th February, 2022

+

RSA 37/2020 & CM APPLs.7988-89/2020

RAJINDER PERSHAD & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. J. K. Jain, Advocate (M:

8904697393)

versus

RAM NIWAS (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through:

None.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1.

This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment

dated 18^th November, 2019 passed by the ld. ADJ-VII (Central), Tis Hazari

Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, “Appellate Court”) in RCA No.11/2019 titled

Sh. Rajinder Pershad v. Sh. Ved Prakash v. Ram Niwas & Ors. By the

impugned order, the Appellate Court has dismissed the first appeal filed

against the judgment and decree dated 30^th January, 2016 passed by the Ld.

Civil Judge-14, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter,

“Trial Court”) in Suit No.38/15 titled Sh. Rajender Pershad & Ors. v. Ram

Niwas & Ors. Therefore, in effect, the Appellate Court and the Trial Court

have arrived at concurrent findings.

3. The dispute in the present case is between the legal heirs of the

brothers i.e., Sh. Udey Ram, Sh. Teeka Ram, Sh. Tokh Ram, Sh. Ram Niwas

& Sh. Yad Ram, who are all sons of Pt. Har Lal. The Plaintiffs are the legal

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000600

heirs of Sh. Udey Ram. A suit for partition was filed by the Plaintiffs

seeking partition and permanent injunction. The reliefs sought in the said

suit are as under:

granted in favour of the plaintiffs.”

4. As per the plaint, the case of the Plaintiffs in the said plaint was that

all the properties are joint properties. In paragraph 5 of the said plaint, the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000600

Plaintiffs pleaded that there was a settlement and agreement between the

parties. Apart from the settlement, the Plaintiffs staked their entitled to 1/5^th

share in the suit property. The Plaintiffs further claimed that the Defendants

have raised illegal and unauthorised construction on the suit property, during

the pendency of the suit being Civil Suit No. 17/2004 titled “Sh.Rajinder

Pershad v. Sh. Ram Niwas”. However, the said suit was withdrawn with

permission to file afresh. Thereafter, the Defendants threatened to take

forceable possession of the suit property. Under such circumstances, on the

strength of joint ownership, the partition and injunction in respect of the suit

property was sought by the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court.

5. Vide judgment and decree dated 30^th January, 2016, the Trial Court

framed the following issues:

7. Relief.”

6. The first three issues related to the valuation of the suit for the

purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, whether the suit was barred in view of

the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and whether the suit is

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000600

bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. On Issue No. 4, which was the substantive issue, the Trial Court has

analysed the facts of the case and the evidence on record including the oral

evidence which was led. Reliance was placed by the Trial Court upon

Exhibit DW1/1 which was a compromise or family arrangement dated 27^th

April, 1979. On the strength of this document, while relying upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh [AIR 1988

SC 881], the Trial Courtholds that the suit property was already divided

between the parties in terms of the said settlement, and the same did not

require registration. The finding of the Trial Court on Issue No.4 is extracted

below:

(See Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh AIR 1988 SC 881).

required to be compulsorily registered.”

8. In view of the finding set out above, the Trial Court has held that the

partition of the suit property has already taken pl