LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-18

RAM NIWAS Vs. PITAMBER SINGH

Decided On February 29, 2008
RAM NIWAS Appellant
V/S
PITAMBER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment we propose to dispose of this appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, dated 19th September, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in the suit filed by the appellant. In the said suit, the following issues were framed:

(2.) IN the suit, the defendants took up the plea that except for issue No. 1, the rest of the issues namely, issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4, cannot be tried by a Civil court. Issue No. 5 was framed in the light of the said objection taken up by the defendants. Issue No. 5 came to be decided in the impugned judgment and order in favour of the defendants. The findings recorded therein are under challenge in this appeal on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant had to concede that so far as issue Nos. 2and4 are concerned, they are probably issues which cannot be decided by a Civil Court and may have to be referred to a Revenue Court for decision, as the said issues relate to title. In this connection, reference was made to the provisions of Section 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. In sub-section (1) of Section 186 it is provided that if there is any dispute with regard to title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of revenue proceedings, in that event the Court may frame an issue on the said question of title and submit the record for decision of the civil court. The issues, namely, issue Nos. 2and4, therefore, are required to be considered by the Revenue Court and if the Revenue Court is of the opinion that the said issues relate to the question of title then the same are required to be referred to the competent civil Court for its decision as laid down under Section 186 (1) of the Delhi Land reforms Act. To the aforesaid extent there is also admission on the part of the appellant which is disclosed from the impugned order, where the learned single Judge referred to the said admission thus: