NANAK CHAND Vs. RAJA RAKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue which arises for consideration is whether the aforementioned suit for injunction simpliciter would be maintainable in view of the plaintiffs having withdrawn their prayer for the grant of a decree of declaration in their favour and against the defendant No.1, declaring the plaintiffs as the rightful owners (bhumidars) of the land in dispute, i.e., land bearing Khasra No.44 Min, Khewat No.14, Khatauni No.303, admeasuring 1 bigha 16 biswas situated at Village Saboli, Shahdara, Delhi more specifically as shown bounded by red in the site plan attached with the plaint.

(2.) Before embarking upon the discussion as to the maintainability of the suit, it would be apposite to mention that though the aforesaid suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of their Bhumidari rights with respect to the aforesaid agricultural land and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiffs on the land in dispute and also for the recovery of Rs. 2.50 Lacs from the defendant No.1, none of the parties impleaded by the plaintiffs, viz., defendants No.1 to 9 (defendants No.3 to 9 being proforma defendants) and those impleaded on the orders of the Court, viz., defendants No.10 and 11, showed any interest in contesting the title alleged by the plaintiffs; the defendants No. 2 to 8 were proceeded ex parte in default of appearance on 01-02-2008. Subsequently, on 11-08-2008 the defendant No. 1 was also proceeded ex-parte and on 23-10-2008 the defendants No.10 and 11 being the Revenue Authorities were exempted from appearance before the Court subject to their filing a status report in respect of the land in question. However, on an application filed by one Hulas Chand claiming to be the owner of the suit land, the said Hulas Chand was impleaded by the Court as a necessary and proper party to the present suit and added as defendant No.12. The said Hulas Chand, being the only person interested in contesting the title claimed by the plaintiffs, through his counsel argued that the present suit for the relief of declaration of Bhoomidari rights is not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in Smt. Phoolwati and Ors. vs. Smt. Ram Dei and Ors., 2008 150 DLT 105.

(3.) It was upon the aforesaid stand taken by the defendant No.12, Hulas Chand that an issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit, being Issue No.3 as set out hereinbelow: