JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. SRI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is to the two concurrent decisions of the Courts below, first of the Trial Court dated 4.8.2010, and the second of the Appellate Court dated 14.3.2011, by which judgments, the plaint of the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on account of the same being barred by time.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that certain parcels of land in village Rajokri, Delhi were sold by father of the appellant to the respondents in the year 1993. THE appellant thereafter filed an application before the Revenue Assistant in the year 1997 under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 alleging that the share of his father was wrongly recorded as 1/6th and 1/4th in two parcels of land whereas the share of the appellant, and the father and brother of the appellant was 1/18th and 1/12th each. THE appellant sought a declaration that he was bhumidar of 1/18th share out of the land khata khatoni no.36/29 and 1/12th share in khata khatoni no. 37/30 standing in the revenue record by filing an application. During the proceedings before the Revenue Assistant on 24.6.2004, the appellant entered into a compromise and signed a memorandum of understanding with the respondents for amicable settlement of the dispute and the appellant received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards "cost of the proceedings". However it is not disputed that by virtue of a compromise it was agreed that the appellant has no right in the land in question and for which a memorandum of understanding was executed. Consequently, the appellant withdrew his application filed under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and which application was signed by the appellant and his counsel. Subsequently, thereafter on 27.7.2004 the appellant filed an application under Section 151 CPC stating that a fraud had been played upon him and that his application under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 be restored. THE Revenue Assistant dismissed the application which sought recall of the compromise order. THE appeal filed by the appellant before the Deputy Collector was also dismissed. THE Deputy Collector while dismissing the appeal has noted in his order that the father of appellant had sold his holdings to the respondents through a General Power of Attorney and mutation was sanctioned in favour of the respondents and it appears that there would have been disputes which led to some dissatisfaction between the two parties with respect to the value of the land and which were not in the purview of the disputes before the Revenue Assistant. Further, an appeal filed under Section 66 of Dlhi Land Reform Act, 1954 before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order. It was noted in the order of the Financial Commissioner that when the statement of the appellant was recorded by the Revenue Assistant with respect to the compromise, his counsel was also present and the application under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was withdrawn after receiving the agreed amount from the respondents. THE appellant further challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner by means of a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court and which Writ Petition was withdrawn after addressing arguments inasmuch as the counsel for the appellant made a statement that the appellant was in the process of instituting a civil suit to challenge the settlement as fraudulent. THE suit was dismissed as time-barred and the appeal which was thereafter filed against the order dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC being barred by time was also dismissed.

(3.) A second appeal under Section 100 CPC, against two concurrent judgments of the Courts below will only lie if there arises a substantial question of law. In the guise of the second appeal, matters which are already argued and held against the appellant by both the Courts below by means of valid reasons cannot be said to be a substantial question of law.