Mai Chand v. Rampal (Deceased) Thr Lrs

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 'pp'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 26th September, 2018. + RSA 54/2018, CM No.12938/2018 (for condonation of 45 days delay in filing the appeal) & CM No.12939/2018 (for stay) MAI CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Shafiq Khan, Adv. Versus RAMPAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 30th October, 2017 in RCA No.1127/16 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge (Central)] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 5th February 2004 in Suit No.240/1992 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi] allowing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and injuncting the appellant/defendant from interfering with the possession of the respondent/plaintiff of agricultural land ad measuring 4 bighas bearing Khasra No.27/15 min in Khata Khatoni No.680 min 527 min situated within the Revenue Estate of village Dichaun Kalan, Delhi and from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff from the said land. 2. This appeal filed on 16th March, 2018 came up first before this Court on 9th April, 2018, when on request of the counsel for the appellant/defendant, it was adjourned to 25th September, 2018. On 25th September, 2018 again, request for adjournment by six weeks was made by the counsel for the appellant/defendant. Observing, that the appellant/his counsel, if not ready to address arguments, ought not to have preferred this appeal, last opportunity was given to the appellant/defendant to address arguments on admissibility of the appeal today. 3. The counsel for the appellant/defendant has been heard and the copies of the Trial Court record annexed to the memorandum of appeal perused. 4. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit, from which this Second Appeal arises, pleading (i) that the respondent/plaintiff was allotted the subject land in the year 1976 under the Twenty Point Programme of the Government of India; (ii) that the respondent/plaintiff, since the year 1976, had been in cultivatory possession of the subject land; (iii) that the respondent/plaintiff applied under Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 for getting himself declared bhumidhar of the subject land; (iv) the Revenue Assistant, vide order dated 21st October, 1987 in Case No.339/1985, declared the respondent/plaintiff as bhumidhar of the subject land; (v) that thereafter, mutation of the subject land was also carried out in the Revenue Records in the name of the respondent/plaintiff and the respondent/plaintiff was also issued a passbook by the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi in respect of the said land; (vi) that the Khasra girdawari dated 23rd April, 1992 issued by Girdawar Kanungo of the area for Rabi 1992, being the latest crop sown, also showed the cultivation thereof to be of the respondent/plaintiff; and, (vii) that after the respondent/plaintiff had cut the crop so sown, the appellant/defendant on 11th May, 1992 attempted to dispossess the respondent/plaintiff from the subject land. Hence the suit, filed on or about 12th May, 1992. 5. The appellant/defendant contested the suit pleading, (i) that the suit was without cause of action as the respondent/plaintiff, in the garb of the suit for permanent injunction, was seeking to recover possession of the land from the appellant/defendant; (ii) that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act; (iii) Gaon Sabha was a necessary party to the suit; (iv) that the appellant/defendant was allotted 4 bighas of land in Khasra No.27/15 and 27/6 in the year 1976 by the Gaon Sabha under Rule 47 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954 and since then, the appellant/defendant was in cultivatory possession of the subject land; (v) that the appellant/defendant had also filed a suit for declaration of bhumidhari rights with respect to t