RAM KISHOR Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition of certain properties falling in Village, Alipur, Delhi. Plaintiff's claim is that the agricultural land was owned by late Shri Mamraj, great grandfather of the plaintiff, and common ancestors of defendants No. 1 to 8. After death of Mamraj, his four sons inherited the property left by him in equal shares. The land inherited by them was governed by Delhi Land Reforms Act and was enjoyed by his four sons as individual holdings. Plaintiff claimed that an area measuring 5849 sq. yards, as shown by him in the site plan, was still a common property. The plaintiff was the only son of defendant No. 1 and he along with defendant No. 1 and his uncle Zile Singh, as defendant No. 2, have together inherited one half of the property falling in the share of Late Kanshi Ram son of Mamraj and defendant no. 3 to 8 inherited rest one half share of Rati Ram, the other son of Mamraj. The plaintiff claimed that he and his father were entitled to one-fourth share. The plaintiff's share therefore was 1/8th, which comes to 736. 75 sq. yards. The plaintiff was in occupation of only 308 sq. yards and he was therefore entitled to balance area of 428. 13 sq. yrd. in the property and thus, claimed partition of the ancestral properties.

(2.) IN the written statement, the defendants took objection that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable since the plaintiff has not given any description of the property and plaintiff simply mentioned an area without describing Khasra Number and other requisite description. It is also stated that mamraj was not the owner of the property nor the property belonged to Gaon sabha. The defendants and plaintiff's ancestors were in adverse possession of the properties. However, Gaon Sabha filed an ejectment suit and failed. Since then the plaintiff and the defendants were in possession of their respective properties and had become owner by adverse possession. The other ground taken by the defendants is that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is the case of the plaintiff that they were all governed by provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. Delhi Land Reforms Act provides that Revenue Assistant (SDM) was the competent court to grant the relief of partition. Civil court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief of partition.

(3.) THIS Court vide order dated 10th March 2003 observed that there were preliminary objections about the maintainability of suit in view of Section 55 and 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and fixed the matter for hearing of preliminary issues. This Court also appointed amicus curiae on 21st July 2004 to assist the court on the issue of maintainability. The amicus curiae appointed by this Court filed his written submissions. In between, some of the parties passed away and the matter kept on hanging as their LRs were to be brought on record. Ultimately, arguments on the issue of maintainability were addressed on 13th March 2008.