PUSHPA SROHA Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants have challenged the very maintainability owing to; the bar of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, and which is for consideration.

(2.) The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff herein along with the defendant No. 4 herein as plaintiff No. 1 for the relief of partition of agricultural land ad-measuring 6.75 acres in Village Auchandi, Delhi and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said land. In the plaint as original filed it was the case that Shri Nand Ram Verma being the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1,2&4 (who was then the plaintiff No. 1) and the grandfather of the defendant No. 3 was the owner of the said land; that after the demise of the said Shri Nand Ram Verma, in or about 1996 there was a settlement amongst the plaintiff, defendants No. 1,2,4 and the father of the defendant No. 3 as well as the widow of the said Shri Nand Ram Verma whereby all the family members agreed that the present plaintiff being the only daughter of Shri Nand Ram Verma shall be entitled to a equal share in the aforesaid land in terms of the last wishes of Shri Nand Ram Verma; that in accordance with the said family settlement the plaintiff, defendants No. 1,2&4 and the father of the defendant No. 3 became the owner of 1/5 equal share in the aforesaid land; that however it was discovered in 2006 that the land had been mutated in the names of the defendants only and the name of plaintiff was not i mentioned in the revenue records in contravention of the family settlement, The suit was thus filed for partition and injunction aforesaid.

(3.) The defendant No. 4 (who was then the plaintiff No. 1) however appeared before this court on 3rd April, 2006 and stated that he would not like to pursue the case any further. The suit being for partition, he was transposed as the defendant No. 4 as the plaintiff herein wanted to continue with the proceedings.