Kartar Singh v. Ram Anuj Pandey

1. This second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 4.2.2012 and the first appellate court dated 5.12.2012; by which the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession was decreed with respect to the suit land being a plot of 40 sq. yds in K.No.11/19, Village Jhuljhuli Extention, New Delhi-73.

2. The respondent-plaintiff claimed possession of the suit plot on the ground that he had purchased rights of the same on the basis of general 2014:DHC:2204 power of attorney registered before the sub-Registrar on 25.2.2002 by the appellant-defendant. Appellant-defendant had also executed a Will dated 25.2.2002 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and which was also registered with the sub-Registrar. An agreement to sell of the same date i.e 25.2.2002 was also executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff claimed to have been dispossessed by the appellantdefendant/seller although possession was given to him as stated in the agreement to sell, and therefore, the subject suit came to be filed.

3. Both the courts below noted that there is no defence worth any substance whatsoever in the written statement because in the written statement appellant/defendant does not dispute of having received the entire consideration and thereafter having executed the documents in favour of the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the suit plot. In the written statement in fact, it is stated that after the appellant-defendant has sold the suit plot, he has no concern with the subject plot. The appellant-defendant however argued that civil courts did not have jurisdiction and that the proceedings could only be filed for possession under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in short ‘DLR Act’). The suit before the civil court was said to be therefore barred in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

4. The issue in this case is no longer res integra and it has been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nilima Gupta, P.A.Choudhary Nepal Singh and Suraj Bhan Vs. Yogesh Saroha and Ors. 156 (2009) DLT 129 that once the rural land is built upon and a colony is carved out wherein houses exist, in such circumstances, the area in question ceases to be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

5. Since in the present case, land is part of a built up colony, the same would not be covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act in view of the judgment in the case of Nilima Gupta (supra) and therefore, Section 185 of the DLR Act will not apply.

6. On behalf of the appellant, it was also argued, and as was argued before the appellate court, that, the transaction is void because of Section 33 of the DLR Act, however, this argument is misconceived not only because there is no such pleading in the written statement, but even if such pleading is there, the bar under Section 33 of the DLR Act would only apply if the appellant-defendant has balance land available after selling the plot of 40 sq. yds to the respondent-plaintiff. There is however no such case laid out by the appellant-defendant in the written statement that he would be left with less than eight standard acres after selling of the suit plot to the respondentplaintiff. As per Section 33 of the DLR Act, the bar therein will not apply if the bhumidhar sells his entire land to the seller and in the present case the appellant-defendant had not stated that he is left with other land after selling of the suit land to respondent-plaintiff and that the balance land with the appellant-defendant would be less than eight standard acres and hence the transaction is void by virtue of Section 33 of the DLR Act. In any case, as already stated above, DLR Act does not apply to land in question. The second argument urged on behalf of the appellant is also therefore rejected.

7. The second appeal is only entertained if there arises a substantial question of law. The present litigation is nothing but an act of gross dishonesty on the part of the appellant-defendant who sold rights in the suit plot to the respondent-plaintiff but thereafter is seeking to back out of the same. As already stated above, no defence of any worth was at all raised in the written statement where in fact the entire case of the respondent/plaintiff was conceded and the only objection raised was to the jurisdiction of the civil court, and which argument is without any basis as discussed above.

8. In view of the above, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- inasmuch as the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 249 has observed that it is high time that actual costs must be imposed with respect to dishonest litigation. I am also empowered to impose actual costs in exercise of powers under Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule 15.

APRIL 28, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib