KAMALA DEVI Vs. KUSUSM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order of the learned Trial Court dated 11th February, 2008 whereby the Trial court kept open the issue of its jurisdiction against the defendant/petitioner.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed this suit stating that defendant sold her a piece of land measuring 950 square yards in khasra No. 38/10/2, Khatoni no. 108, Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi and this was the only plot left with defendant no. 1. The sale documents in the shape of General Power of attorney, Agreement to Sell and a receipt of consideration were executed by defendant no. 1 on 13. 5. 2003. Defendant no. 1 subsequently on 17. 10. 2003 malafidely cancelled these documents. The plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that cancellation deed dated 17. 10. 2003 was null and void and also prayed for an injunction restraining defendant from creating third party interest in the suit property. Defendant took objection that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reform Act. The Trial court after discussing the contention of both the sides observed that plaint was not barred by the Delhi Land reform Act to seek a relief of permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff had not claimed Bhumidari rights and the jurisdiction of the Court was not barred under Section 185 of Delhi Land Reform act.

(3.) THE plea taken by the petitioner that the Court had no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reform Act is devoid of merits. The plaintiff had approached the Court seeking a declaration in respect of cancellation deed dated 17. 10. 2003 being null and void and permanent injunction restraining defendant. None of these matters are covered by Delhi land Reform Act. Neither Section 185 nor any other provision of Delhi Land reform Act bars the Civil Court from entertaining the suit where cancellation of a deed executed by an agriculturist in respect of agricultural land is filed. A suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from creating third party rights also can be entertained by the Civil Court. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.