Full Text
Translation output
--q-'
IN THE HIGII COURT OF c.R.P. r2/20r0
VIDYA DEVI
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate.
VCTSUS
RAM SWAROOP ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. B.S. Mann, Mr. Rajeshwar Dagar &
Mr. Jitin Tewathia. Advochtes.
IN THE HIGII COURT OF c.R.P. r2/20r0
VIDYA DEVI
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate.
VCTSUS
RAM SWAROOP ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. B.S. Mann, Mr. Rajeshwar Dagar &
Mr. Jitin Tewathia. Advochtes.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
% 01.09.2011
I have heard cottnsel for both the parlies.
The present petition is filed against the order of the trial Court dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner- defendant who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the respondent-plaintiffl for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit involving the title of the suit land in a Civil Court was baned in view of the provisions of Sections 185 and 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
The suit was filed bV th3 plaintiff-respondent for declaration of the sale deeds in respect of the suit lands executed by hirn in favour of the petitioner-defendant and one
."
Developer as null and void having been got executed frorn him by his own son, the petitioner's deceased husband, by fraud and for their cancellation. The averments were made in detail in the plaint as to how his son had played fi'aud upon him. The respondent- plaintiff had also filed a petition before the Revenue Court challenging the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant-petitioner by the Revenue authorities on the stlength of the documents which were sought to be got declared as null and void.
After having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, trial Court held that the matters in respect of which the jurisdiction of the civil courts is ousted are only those which are mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Delhi
Land Reforms Act and that the suit of the present nature in which the reliefs of declaration and cancellation of docunents of title on the ground of fraud are claimed is not covered by any entry in the Schedule L c.R.P.72/2010
% 01.09.2011
I have heard cottnsel for both the parlies.
The present petition is filed against the order of the trial Court dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner- defendant who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the respondent-plaintiffl for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit involving the title of the suit land in a Civil Court was baned in view of the provisions of Sections 185 and 186 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
The suit was filed bV th3 plaintiff-respondent for declaration of the sale deeds in respect of the suit lands executed by hirn in favour of the petitioner-defendant and one
."
Developer as null and void having been got executed frorn him by his own son, the petitioner's deceased husband, by fraud and for their cancellation. The averments were made in detail in the plaint as to how his son had played fi'aud upon him. The respondent- plaintiff had also filed a petition before the Revenue Court challenging the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant-petitioner by the Revenue authorities on the stlength of the documents which were sought to be got declared as null and void.
After having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, trial Court held that the matters in respect of which the jurisdiction of the civil courts is ousted are only those which are mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Delhi
Land Reforms Act and that the suit of the present nature in which the reliefs of declaration and cancellation of docunents of title on the ground of fraud are claimed is not covered by any entry in the Schedule L c.R.P.72/2010
*
T
;L
T
;L
2011:DHC:9179
(
,
(
,
<- lo
After having gone through the impugned order and having considered subrnissions of both the counsel, I do not see any rnaterial irregularity comrnitted by the trial Court ancl 1o rcason to set aside the irnpugncd ordcr. 1'he application under Older
VII Rule i I was rightly disrnissed. 'fhe respondent-plaintiff was not claiming any declaration of bhoomidari rights in his favour' fi'orn the Civil Courl. The
After having gone through the impugned order and having considered subrnissions of both the counsel, I do not see any rnaterial irregularity comrnitted by the trial Court ancl 1o rcason to set aside the irnpugncd ordcr. 1'he application under Older
VII Rule i I was rightly disrnissed. 'fhe respondent-plaintiff was not claiming any declaration of bhoomidari rights in his favour' fi'orn the Civil Courl. The
ORDER
of a
Division Belch of this Court in FAO (OS) 406/2007 given on 29th February, 2008 and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner here is not applicable since in that case ths plaintiff had claimed before the Civil Courl a declaration in respect of some mutations capicd out by the Itevenue Authorities as also in respect of some order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. So, it was held by this Court that Civil Courl had no jurisidiction to give any declaration in respect of the decisions taken by the Revenue
Author.ities. No such declaration had been sought hcre by the iespondent-plaintiff.
Mutations he has independently challenged before the Revenue Authority itself.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 01,2011 nk o c.R.P.12/2010
2011:DHC:9179
Division Belch of this Court in FAO (OS) 406/2007 given on 29th February, 2008 and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner here is not applicable since in that case ths plaintiff had claimed before the Civil Courl a declaration in respect of some mutations capicd out by the Itevenue Authorities as also in respect of some order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. So, it was held by this Court that Civil Courl had no jurisidiction to give any declaration in respect of the decisions taken by the Revenue
Author.ities. No such declaration had been sought hcre by the iespondent-plaintiff.
Mutations he has independently challenged before the Revenue Authority itself.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 01,2011 nk o c.R.P.12/2010
2011:DHC:9179