Master Prashant v. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal

4 RSA 168/2011 Appellant versus ARVINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS and R-3 2013:DHC:8600 •V CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER % 04.03.2013

1. [.earned counsel for the appellant has very fairly made a statement that he has not been able to check the Khasra girdawari in the name of Dharam Singh the grandfather of the appellant in the capacity of HUF. He has further contended that the present Suit raises a substantial question of law inasmuch as the Suit of the appellant filed before the trial court which was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was not covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act and consequently was not barred by virtue of Section 185 of the said Act.

2. 1 have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The plaintiff had filed the Suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the sale deed dated 26.4.2000 purported to have been executed by one late Dharam Singh in respect of Khasra No. 21/13/2 Min (4-10). 18/2 min (3-00) situated in the Revenue Estate of village I.adpur, Delhi is illegal and void. A decree of permanent injunction was also prayed for. It was stated in the plaint that the aforesaid land in question was essentially an HUF property and, therefore, he had an interest in the )o same. The appellant's own averment in the petition was that the revenue record showed the name of grandfather of the appellant in his individual capacity and not in the capacity of Karta of HUF. On an application being filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint of the appellant was rejected as being without any cause of action vide a detailed order of 3.10.2009.

4. The appellant feeling aggrieved, filed appeals which came to be listed before learned ADJ bearing no. RCA No. 16/2009, RCA No. 17/2009 and RCA No. 18/2009 and vide a common order dated 26.5.2011 the appeals were also dismissed.

5. Still feeling dissatisfied, the appellant has filed the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. The Second Appeal is admissible only if substantial question of law is involved. The learned counsel has very fairly conceded that the revenue record shows late Dharamvir, grandfather of the appellant, as the recorded owner in his individual capacity. If that be so. then it was the holding of the late Dharamvir in his individual capacity and not in the capacity of an HUF and the appellant would not have any right, title or interest in the said land. The learned trial court as well as the Appellate Court have already returned a concurrent finding in this regard. )l The matter does not involve any substantial question of law. The submission which has been made by the learned counsel is essentially a question of fact which has already been held against him by two Courts below.

6. Dismissed.

MARCH 04,2013 nt V.K. SHALI, J