Kartar Singh vs Ram Anuj Pandey
2014 Latest Caselaw 2099 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No. 154/2013

%                                                    28th April, 2014

KARTAR SINGH                                             ......Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Himanshu Dutt, Adv.



                                VERSUS


RAM ANUJ PANDEY                                          ...... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts

below; of the trial court dated 4.2.2012 and the first appellate court dated

5.12.2012; by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession was

decreed with respect to the suit land being a plot of 40 sq. yds in

K.No.11/19, Village Jhuljhuli Extention, New Delhi-73.

2.    The respondent-plaintiff claimed possession of the suit plot on the

ground that he had purchased rights of the same on the basis of general
RSA 154/2013                                                                 Page 1 of 5
 power of attorney registered before the sub-Registrar on 25.2.2002 by the

appellant-defendant. Appellant-defendant had also executed a Will dated

25.2.2002 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and which was also

registered with the sub-Registrar. An agreement to sell of the same date i.e

25.2.2002 was also executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

Respondent-plaintiff claimed to have been dispossessed by the appellant-

defendant/seller although possession was given to him as stated in the

agreement to sell, and therefore, the subject suit came to be filed.

3.    Both the courts below noted that there is no defence worth any

substance whatsoever in the written statement because in the written

statement appellant/defendant does not dispute of having received the entire

consideration and thereafter having executed the documents in favour of the

respondent/plaintiff with respect to the suit plot. In the written statement in

fact, it is stated that after the appellant-defendant has sold the suit plot, he

has no concern with the subject plot. The appellant-defendant however

argued that civil courts did not have jurisdiction and that the proceedings

could only be filed for possession under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

(in short 'DLR Act'). The suit before the civil court was said to be therefore

barred in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.


RSA 154/2013                                                                 Page 2 of 5
 4.    The issue in this case is no longer res integra and it has been held by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nilima Gupta,

P.A.Choudhary Nepal Singh and Suraj Bhan Vs. Yogesh Saroha and Ors.

156 (2009) DLT 129 that once the rural land is built upon and a colony is

carved out wherein houses exist, in such circumstances, the area in question

ceases to be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

5.    Since in the present case, land is part of a built up colony, the same

would not be covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act in view of the

judgment in the case of Nilima Gupta (supra) and therefore, Section 185 of

the DLR Act will not apply.

6.    On behalf of the appellant, it was also argued, and as was argued

before the appellate court, that, the transaction is void because of Section 33

of the DLR Act, however, this argument is misconceived not only because

there is no such pleading in the written statement, but even if such pleading

is there, the bar under Section 33 of the DLR Act would only apply if the

appellant-defendant has balance land available after selling the plot of 40 sq.

yds to the respondent-plaintiff. There is however no such case laid out by

the appellant-defendant in the written statement that he would be left with

less than eight standard acres after selling of the suit plot to the respondent-

plaintiff. As per Section 33 of the DLR Act, the bar therein will not apply if
RSA 154/2013                                                                 Page 3 of 5
 the bhumidhar sells his entire land to the seller and in the present case the

appellant-defendant had not stated that he is left with other land after selling

of the suit land to respondent-plaintiff and that the balance land with the

appellant-defendant would be less than eight standard acres and hence the

transaction is void by virtue of Section 33 of the DLR Act. In any case, as

already stated above, DLR Act does not apply to land in question. The

second argument urged on behalf of the appellant is also therefore rejected.

7.    The second appeal is only entertained if there arises a substantial

question of law.    The present litigation is nothing but an act of gross

dishonesty on the part of the appellant-defendant who sold rights in the suit

plot to the respondent-plaintiff but thereafter is seeking to back out of the

same. As already stated above, no defence of any worth was at all raised in

the written statement where in fact the entire case of the respondent/plaintiff

was conceded and the only objection raised was to the jurisdiction of the

civil court, and which argument is without any basis as discussed above.

8.    In view of the above, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed

with costs of Rs.20,000/- inasmuch as the Supreme Court in the case of Ram

Rameshwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 249 has

observed that it is high time that actual costs must be imposed with respect

to dishonest litigation. I am also empowered to impose actual costs in
RSA 154/2013                                                                 Page 4 of 5
 exercise of powers under Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules and

Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule 15.




APRIL 28, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib