RAM LUBHAYA KAPOOR Vs. J R CHAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this revision petition lies in a very narrow compass, the sole question which falls for determination being whether the civil courts have jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner against the defendants-respondents with respect to a plot of land bearing No. 46 (old)/10 (new) Manohar Park situated in the revenue estate of Basai Darapur.

(2.) The facts germane to the decision of this petition in brief are that way back in 1966 the petitioner instituted a suit for possession of a plot of land measuring 200 sq. yards and bearing No. 46 (old)/10 (new) on the ground that he bad purchased the same from Raghbir Singb, respondent No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 25th March 1960 and be was put into possession thereof by the vendor. However, sometime in 1965 be learnt that respondents, l, 3 & 4 respondent 3 & 4 being daughters of respondent No. I had illegally occupied the same and bad built a boundry wall and some rooms thereon. The suit was contested by respondents 1,' 3 & 4 who asserted that Smt.Usha, respondent No. 4, had purchased a plot of land bearing No. 48 (old) corresponding to new No. 10 situated in the revenue estate of Basai Darapur from respondent No. 2 vide sale deed dated 25/6/1960 which was later on amended vide corrigendum deed dated 7/2/1962 after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short 'the Corporation') and as such she was in possession of the said plot in her own right as owner. The respondents, however, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that Raghbir Singh respondent No. 2 was bhumidar of the land in question and as such suit for possession of the same was maintainable in the Revenue Court as provided for in the Delhi Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Consequently the civil courts bad no jurisdiction to try the same.

(3.) Faced with this situation, the plaintiff-petitioner amended his plaint and, inter alia, averred that the plot described as bearing No. 48 (old) by the defendant-respondent was in fact the same which he had purchased from respondent No. 2 but the latter played fraud by misrepresenting that plot as bearing No. 48 (old) instead of 46 (old) in respect of which respondent No. 2 had earlier executed a sale deed in petitioner's favour. He ) also asserted that the plot in question is situated within the urbanised area of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and as such the provisions of the Act 1 were not attracted to the same.