Delhi High Court
Kaushalya & Ors. vs Daya Chand & Ors. on 2 May, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of judgment: 02.5.2011
+ R.S.A.No.250/2007 & CM No.13255/2007
KAUSHALYA & ORS. ...........Appellants
Through: Mr.V.P.Rana, Advocate.
Versus
DAYA CHAND & ORS. ..........Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
CM No.13255/2007 (for delay)
There is no opposition to this application. The delay in filing
the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of.
R.S.A.No.250/2007
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
19.1.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated
01.5.2004 whereby the suit filed Kaushalya & Ors. seeking the
following prayer:
a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants, thereby declaring the impugned
order of mutation dated 7.2.2002 passed by the learned
Consolidating Officer, Kanjhawla, Delhi (defendant no.5) in
case No.141/The/02 in respect of the agriculture land under
khasra no.94/23(2-00), 97/35(4-00) total admeasuring 6
bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Kanjhawala,
Delhi and the plot no.74/122 (2-2) 143/766 (0-6) and
residential house measuring 150 sq. yards situated in village
Kanjhawala, Delhi in favour of the defendants no.1 to 3, as
null and void, invalid and illegal and inoperative in the eyes
of law. Also declare that the forged and fabricated
Relinquishment Deed registered on 22.1.2002 and Will
dated 18.12.2001 as null and void and invalid and
inoperative in the eyes of law. Also declare the plaintiff and
her son Rajesh Rana as the lawful owner of the subject land
and property in question.
b) Pass a decree of Permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the
defendants no.1 to 3, their associates, agents, from
transferring, alienating, disposing off and creating any third
party interest over the subject land under khasra no.93/23
(2-00), 97/36 (4-00) total measuring 6 bighas situated in the
revenue estate of Village Kanjhawala, Delhi-84 and also plot
of land measuring 1500 sq. yards situated in the extended
Lal Dora abadi Deh and a residential house measuring 150
sq. yards situated in the village Kanjhawala, Delhi-81 in
favour of any third person.
c) Costs of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
had been dismissed.
This finding had been endorsed in first appeal.
2. Both the courts below were of the view that the present suit
is barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to the as 'the DLRA')
3. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction which had been filed by the plaintiff. The
prayers have been aforenoted. Prayer no.(a) categorically recites
that the relinquishment deed dated 22.1.2002 purported to have
been executed by deceased Tara Chand was a forged and
fabricated document; the will of deceased Tara chand dated
18.12.2001 is also forged and fabricated. This prayer
categorically states that both the aforenoted documents be
declared null and void. Paras 9 to 11 of the plaint are also
relevant wherein it has been detailed that the aforenoted
documents are, in fact, forged, fabricated and manipulated.
4. The impugned judgment had endorsed the finding of the
trial judge. Trial judge had relied upon the judgment of Apex
Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 2320 Hatti Vs. Surender Singh to
hold that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the afore
noted provisions of Section 185 of the DLRA to entertain a suit of
the present nature.
5. This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on
15.12.2010 the following substantial question of law has been
framed:
Whether the finding in the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2007
confirming the findings of the trial judge whereby the claimed of
the appellant/plaintiff stood rejected are perverse? If so, its
effect?
6. On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that only those
matters as are referred to in Schedule 1 of the DLRA are barred
under the provisions of the said Act. Courts below had not
appreciated the fact that the appellant/plaintiff was also seeking a
declaration to the effect that the relinquishment deed dated
22.12002 and the will dated 18.12.2001 are void for the reason
that they are manipulated and forged documents; such an enquiry
could not have been gone into by the Revenue Court. Reliance
has been placed upon (2007) 6 SCC 186 Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial
Commissioner to support this submission. In this case the
Supreme Court had held that validity and genuineness of a will
can only be decided by a competent Civil Court. It is pointed out
that in view of the prayer (a) of the plaint specifically averring
that the aforenoted two documents be declared null and void and
this prayer not falling within the domain/jurisdiction of the
Revenue Court, the suit in its entirety could not have been
dismissed. This finding is a perversity and calls for interference.
7. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has
force. Finding on this score as aforenoted are perverse. Matter is
accordingly remanded back to the learned District Judge (Central)
to assign the case to the concerned Civil Judge who will deal with
the question of validity/invalidity of the relinquishment deed dated
22.1.2002 and the will dated 18.2.2001 of the deceased Tara
Chand with the hopeful expectation that the Civil Judge shall
make endeavor to dispose of the matter within outer limit of six
months. This will be the limited issue before the Civil Court. For
this purpose the parties are directed to appear before the learned
District Judge (Central) on 10.5.2011.
8. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MAY 02, 2011
nandan
