SH JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. SH RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit for declaration, partition, permanent injunction etc. The present application is filed by the plaintiff praying inter alia for condonation of delay of 818 days in instituting the present suit. In the course of the arguments, counsel for the plaintiff states that, in fact, condonation of delay which ought to have been sought by the plaintiff is for more than 818 days and according to him, there is delay of about ten years in instituting the present suit.

(2.) A brief reference to the relevant facts of the case is necessary for deciding in the present application. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Sh. Bhagirath, great grandfather of the plaintiff was the owner of the agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Rajokri, New Delhi subject matter of the present suit. Sh. Bhagirath had three sons namely Jhanjhu, Kallu and Ghisha Ram. Sh. Jhanjhu inherited 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property upon the demise of Sh. Bhagirath. Sh. Jhanjhu had two sons, namely, Sh. Tek Chand and Sh. Ram Nath. Upon the demise of Sh. Jhanjhu, his 1/3rd undivided share devolved upon his two sons to the extent of 1/6th share each. Sh. Tek Chand had three sons including the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff claims 1/18th share in the suit premises on the ground that the agricultural land in question was a joint Hindu Family land of which the plaintiff and his two brothers were coparceners. He claims that in the year 1993, his father, Sh. Tek Chand executed three General Power of Attorneys in favour of one Mr. Prakash Sharma who in turn sold the entire agricultural land to defendants No.1 to 16, by way of 30 different sale deeds, all dated 12.1.1994.

(3.) Counsel for the plaintiff submits that on 04.2.1998, the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 11 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act before the learned SDM for correction in the revenue records and for a declaration that the plaintiff had bhumidhari rights in the land in question to the extent of 1/18th share. Vide order dated 12.1.2000, the learned SDM directed the defendants to maintain status quo till the disposal of the case filed by the plaintiff. The defendants therein were later on directed to be proceeded ex-parte. It is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants therein, arrayed as defendants No. 1 to 16 herein, duly recorded in a MOU dated 24.6.2004 whereunder for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the cost of litigation, the plaintiff agreed to enter into a compromise with the said defendants and withdraw the proceedings pending before the learned SDM. The said proceedings were subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff, as duly recorded by learned SDM in the order dated 25.6.2004. A perusal of the order passed by the learned SDM shows that the plaintiff appeared before the learned SDM for withdrawl of the case and made a statement which was duly recorded and his right of bhumidhari case was directed to be disposed of by the learned SDM as withdrawn. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that there was an oral understanding between the parties that apart from a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- received by the plaintiff towards litigation charges, the parties would execute a sale deed for two and a half bighas of land in favour of the plaintiff. He is, however, unable to show from the records any document to substantiate the averment with regard to the purported oral understanding.