IN THE COURT OF SHRI VISHAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 06: CENTRAL : DELHI.
CS No. 14863/16
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Shri. Bhuro S/o. Lt. Sh. Nathan (deceased) through his legal heirs
a) Shri. Gian Singh Son
b) Shri. Kanwar Singh Son
c) Shri. Raj Singh Son
d) Shri. Dharambir Singh Son
e) Shri. Kartar Singh Son
f) Shri. Attar Singh Son
g) Smt. Bholi Widow
All R/o. H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi.
h) Smt. Moorti Devi W/o. Sh. Jagat Singh
R/o. Village Hasangarh, District Rohtak,
Haryana. Daughter
i) Smt. Sarjo W/o. Sh. Hari Singh
R/o. Deshraj Colony, Panipat, Haryana. Daughter
2. Sh. Mangat Ram S/o. Sh. Nathan (deceased) through his legal heirs
a) Shri. Balbir Singh Son
b) Shri Raghubir Singh Son
Both R/o. H. No. 41, Naharpur, Sec7, Rohini,
Delhi – 110 085.
c) Shri Jagdish Singh
R/o. H. No. 46, Naharpur, Sec7, Rohini,
Delhi – 110 085. Son
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 1/40
d) Shri Maha Singh
R/o. H. No. 47, Naharpur, Sec7, Rohini,
Delhi – 110 085. Son
e) Smt. Chameli Devi W/o. Shri Balbir Singh
R/o. DA411, Shish Mahal Apartment,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Daughter
f) Smt. Bharpai Devi W/o. Shri Daryao Singh
R/o. Near Deep Chand Troli Works, Meham Road,
Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana. Daughter
g) Smt. Bimla W/o. Shri Ratan Singh
R/o. Village Mimarpur, Near Police Chowki,
District Sonipat, Haryana. Daughter
h) Smt. Krishna Devi W/o. Shri Randhir Singh
R/o. Village Ganaur, Near Saini Chopal,
District Sonipat, Haryana. Daughter
3. Shri Bhagwana S/o. Lt. Shri Nathan (deceased) through his legal
heirs
a) Smt. Phool Wati Widow
b) Shri Hardeep Singh Saini Son
Both R/o. H. No. 46, Village Naharpur, Delhi.
c) Smt. Kamla Devi W/o. Shri Jai Narain
R/o. Mohalla Chaman Pura, Near Prem Chowk,
District Rohtak, Haryana. Daughter
d) Smt. Meena W/o. Shri Balwant Singh Saini
R/o. 2/655, Saini Anandpura, Opposite Gaur College,
Rohtak, Haryana. Daughter
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 2/40
e) Smt. Dayawati W/o. Shri Suraj Mal Saini
R/o. Saini Wali Gali, Near Ram Lila Ground,
Sonipat, Haryana.
4. Smt. Manbhari D/o Shri Nathan
R/o Village Hasangarh, District Rohtak, Haryana.
Through their Attorney Shri Raghbir Singh Saini
R/o H.No. 41, Village Naharpur, Sec7, Rohini, Delhi
…………….. PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. Shri Dhan Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Saroop
2. Shri Dhani Ram S/o Late Shri Ram Saroop
R/o Village Naharpur, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi
3. Smt. Rudi D/o Late Shri Ram Saroop
4. Smt. Meva D/o Late Shri Ram Saroop
5. Shri Murari Lal (Deceased) through his legal heirs namely:
i) Smt. Kishan Dei Widow
ii) Shri Devinder Kumar Son
iii) Smt. Kamla Daughter
iv) Smt. Bimla Daughter
v) Smt. Anita Daughter
vi) Smt. Gyantri Daughter
vii) Kumari Sunil Daughter
viii) Kumari Monika Daughter
All R/o. H. No. 45, Village Naharpur, Sector07, Rohini, Delhi.
6. Shri Umrao Singh S/o Late Shri Deepan @ Deep Chand
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 3/40
7. Shri Bahadur S/o Late Shri Deepan @ Deep Chand
8. Smt. Maya W/o Shri Sardar Singh D/o Late Shri Deepan @ Deep
Chand
9. Smt. Nihali D/o Late Shri Kanhiya
10. Smt. Basanti D/o Late Shri Kanhiya
11. Shri Narain Singh (Deceased) through his legal heirs namely:
i) Smt. Dhanpati Widow
ii) Shri Vinod Son
iii) Shri Naresh Son
iv) Shri Raju Son
All R/o Village Naharpur, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
12. Shri Pirthi Singh S/o Late Shri Parbhu
13. Shri Leo Ram S/o Late Shri Parbhu
14. Smt. Misri D/o Late Shri Parbhu
15. Smt. Omi D/o Late Shri Parbhu
16. Smt. Kailashwati D/o Late Shri Parbhu
17. Smt. Marwan D/o Late Shri Parbhu
18. Smt. Giaso W/o Late Shri Rampat
19. Shri Meer Singh S/o Late Shri Rampat
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 4/40
20. Shri Karan Singh S/o Late Shri Rampat
21. Shri Braham Singh S/o Late Shri Rampat
22. Shri Jawahar Singh S/o Late Shri Rampat
23. Shri Sube Singh S/o Late Shri Rampat
24. Smt. Sarbati D/o Late Shri Rampat
25. Smt. Biro D/o Late Shri Rampat
26. Smt. Rajo D/o Late Shri Rampat
27. Smt. Rani D/o Late Shri Rampat
28. Shri Chander S/o Shri Nathan
R/o Village Naharpur, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi.
………….DEFENDANTS
Other Details:
Date of Institution : 16.12.1992
Date of Reserving Judgment : 24.01.2018
Date of Judgment : 21.02.2018
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 5/40
Suit for Partition and Permanent Injunction
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for partition of property measuring 4 bigha 19 biswa
of Khasra No. 169, situated in Lal Dora area of village Nahar
Pur, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as suit property. The parties to
the suit are descendants of late Sh. Udami who had four sons
namely Bakhtawar, Mangli, Moola and Nathan. All of them were
entitled to ¼ share each in the suit property.
2. As per plaint filed initially, plaintiffs are legal heirs of Sh.
Nathan, whereas, defendants are legal heirs of Sh. Bakhtawar.
Sh. Mangli and Sh. Moola allegedly died issueless.
3. As per plaint, the plaintiffs, as legal heirs of Sh. Nathan inherited
one half share in the suit property, whereas, the defendants, as
legal heirs of Sh. Bakhtawar inherited the other half share in the
same.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 6/40
4. As per plaint, on account of some mistake the name of Sh. Ram
Swaroop, son of late Bakhtawar, was wrongly recorded as the
adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi, wife of Mangli. As a matter of
fact, Sh. Mangli died issueless. His widow Smt. Jai Devi did not
adopt Sh. Ram Swaroop as her son. Since the entries in the
revenue record are incorrect, no reliance can be placed on those
entries and the defendants should not be allowed to take any
benefit on the basis of those entries in revenue record in respect
of suit property.
5. As per plaint, some dispute arose between the parties in the year
1965 when deceased Sh. Ram Swaroop S/o. Late Sh. Bakhtawar
filed a suit no. 632 of 1965 against coowners of the suit
property. However, the said suit was disposed of as
compromised by the parties on 23/05/1966 and Sh. Nathan, the
father of plaintiffs, came in possession of the land measuring 1
bigha and 10 biswas out of the total land measuring 4 bigha 19
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 7/40
biswa of Khasra No. 169. Thereupon, the plaintiffs constructed
their house on the said land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas. The
parties to the suit have constructed their respective houses on the
land under their joint ownership, forming part of Khasra No.
169, as shown in site plan attached with the plaint. Around 1000
sqr. yards of land under joint possession and ownership of the
parties is lying vacant in Khasra No. 169, as shown in the site
plan. There have been quarrels between the parties related to
possession and ownership of the above mentioned vacant land.
On 17/08/1991, defendants No. 1 and 2 forcibly removed the
cattles of plaintiffs from the said plot and prevented the plaintiffs
from its use.
6. As per plaint, the land shown in green colour in the site plan
attached with the plaint is in exclusive ownership and possession
of the plaintiffs by virtue of the Court order dated 23/05/1966 in
suit no. 632 of 1965 and it does not form part of the disputed
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 8/40
land. The dispute of the parties is only in respect of land
measuring 3450 sqr. yards i.e. 3 bighas 9 biswas, shown in
yellow, red and black colour in the site plan attached with the
plaint. The house measuring 700 sqr. yards constructed by the
plaintiffs is shown in black colour, the house measuring 1750
sqr. yards constructed by the defendants is shown in yellow
colour, whereas, the vacant land measuring about 1000 sqr. yards
is shown in red colour in the site plan.
7. In response to the suit, defendants No. 1 2 (Dhan Singh and
Dani Ram, both sons of late Sh. Ram Swaroop) filed their joint
written statement. They took the objection related to under
valuation of the suit and nonpayment of requisite court fees.
They took objection regarding misjoinder and nonjoinder of
necessary parties. They denied that Mangali died issueless and
contended that Ram Swaroop was adopted son of Mangali and
his wife Jai Devi, which fact is also mentioned in the revenue
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 9/40
records prior to enactment of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. As
per written statement, when Delhi Land Reforms Act got
enacted, Ram Swaroop was declared as bhoomidar of ¼ share
out of total holdings of Sh. Udami, as adopted son of Jai Devi.
Defendants No. 1 and 2 denied that the plaintiffs, as legal heirs
of Sh. Nathan, were entitled to one half share of the estate of Sh.
Udami.
8. Defendants No. 1 and 2 averred that out of the four sons of Sh.
Udami, Mr. Moola and his wife Smt. Dhanno died issueless,
whereas, Smt. Jai Devi wife of Mangli adopted Ram Swaroop
S/o. Bakhtawar as her own son. Thereupon, the properties of
Udami became liable to be divided in three equal shares between
legal heirs of Bakhtawar, legal heirs of Nathan and Ram
Swaroop as legal heir of Mangli. Being an adopted son / legal
heir of Mangli, Ram Swaroop was not to take share as natural
born son / legal heir of Bakhtawar.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 10/40
9. Defendants No. 1 and 2 contended that the name of Ram
Swaroop was not wrongly or mistakenly recorded as adopted son
of Smt. Jai Devi W/o. Mangli in the revenue records; he was
actually her adopted son to the knowledge of all the family
members and villagers at large of village Nahar Pur. The said
fact has already been acknowledged by all the legal heirs of Sh.
Udami in their earlier civil litigation.
10. Defendants No. 1 and 2 denied that legal heirs of Sh. Nathan
were in exclusive possession of 1 bigha 10 biswas of the total
land of 4 bighas 19 biswas in Khasra No. 169 of village Nahar
Pur. They stated that it was actually a joint holding of all the
parties. They stated that the site plan filed by the plaintiffs was
factually wrong. The boundary was allowed to be constructed by
the Court on 1 bigha 10 biswas to protect the crops from stray
animals. They denied that the land measuring around 1000 sqr.
yards shown in red colour in site plan filed by the plaintiffs was
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 11/40
lying vacant. They stated that the said portion was actually
approximately 800850 sqr. yards and was in their possession
since 1954, which became exclusive possession in the year 1966
in terms of mutual compromise between the cosharers in the
earlier civil litigation. They denied that on 17/08/1991 they
removed the cattles of plaintiffs and prevented them from use of
the said plot, the same being in their possession since 1954 and
exclusive possession since 1966. They stated that the land
measuring 1 bigha and 10 biswas claimed to be exclusively
owned by the plaintiffs was a disputed land, regarding which
there were prior civil litigation between the parties.
11. Defendants No. 1 and 2 stated that the partition has to be done
for the entire land measuring 4 bigha 19 biswas in Khasra No.
169 and not that of 3 bigha 9 biswas as mentioned in the plaint.
Defendants No. 1 and 2 stated that the plaintiffs are entitled to
1/3 share in the land measuring 4 bigha 19 biswas but they are in
possession of more land than their share.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 12/40
12. Defendants No. 5 to 7 and 19 to 23 filed their joint written
statement. In the written statement, the said defendants took
objection that married daughters of Sh. Nathan were not entitled
to any share as the property in question was built up and vacant
agricultural land. These defendants sided with defendants no. 1
2 and objected that the site plan filed by the plaintiff is not
correct.
13. Defendants No. 5 to 7 and 19 to 23 stated that the plaintiffs are
estopped from claiming more share in the suit property than their
predecessor in interest Sh. Nathan, who admitted that his share
was to the extent of 1/3 in the suit property in civil suit no.
632/65. They stated that the plaintiffs are already in possession
of more land than their entitlement in the suit property.
14. Defendants No. 5 to 7 and 19 to 23 stated that Sh. Mangli and
his wife Smt. Jai Devi had adopted Ram Swaroop as their son,
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 13/40
which fact was admitted by Sh. Nathan in civil suit no. 632/65.
They denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to the share to the
extent of ½ to the suit property. They denied that deceased Sh.
Nathan took exclusive possession of 1 bigha and 10 biswas in
Khasra No. 169. They stated that defendants no. 1 and 2 are in
exclusive possession of the vacant plot of land measuring 1000
sqr. yards in Khasra No. 169.
15. The legal heirs of deceased defendant no.11 Narayan Singh filed
their written statement in which they did not mention anything
specific in admission or denial of the facts mentioned in the
plaint. Remaining defendants opted not to file written statement.
16. Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were
framed on 04/01/2000:
(1) Is the suit properly valued for the purpose of Court fee
and jurisdiction?
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 14/40
(2) Is the suit bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?
(3) What is the share of the respective parties?
(4) Relief.
17. Vide order dated 14/01/2002, the issues were again framed by
the Court:
1. Has this Court pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?
2. What is the market value of the suit property?
3. What are the respective shares of the parties.
4. Relief.
18. It seems that issues were inadvertently framed again on
14/01/2002. They are mere repetition of the issues framed on
04/01/2000. The issues framed on 04/01/2000 were
comprehensive and shall be considered as issues for
determination by the Court.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 15/40
19. Plaintiffs examined Mangat Ram as PW1. He filed his affidavit
of evidence Ex.PW1/A in which he deposed the facts as
mentioned in the plaint. He relied upon the following documents
in support of his testimony:
a) Ex. P1 is the pedigree table of the descendants of Shri
Udami.
b) Ex. P2 is the death certificate of Shri Ram Swaroop.
c) Ex. P3 is certified copy of the proceedings of the
case titled as “Gaon Sabha, Naharpur Vs. Ram
Swaroop S/o. Sh. Bakhtawar related to proceedings U/s.
86A of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
d) Ex.P4 is a copy of extracts of electoral roll for the
year 1980 of H. No. 106 (42) pertaining to polling
station no. 78, where Ram Swaroop is described as son
of Bakhtawar.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 16/40
e) Ex.P6 is copy of notice issued to Ram Swaroop by
Revenue Assistant in proceedings U/s. 86A DLR Act
in case no. 376/68.
f) Ex.P6A is copy of khatoni/revenue record.
g) Ex.P7 is copy of the plaint in suit no. 632/65, titled as
Ram Swaroop Vs. Nathan Ors., which was
compromised on the basis of statement of parties on
23.05.1966 by the court of Shri V.K. Kaushal, Sub
Judge, Delhi. In the same case, the certified copy of
statement of Ram Swaroop is Ex. P8 and the copy of
order dated 23.05.1966 is Ex.P9.
h) Ex. P10 is the certified copy of the report dated
28.11.1971 of Local Commissioner in Ex. No. 131/71,
titled as Ram Swaroop Vs. Nathan Ors. Ex.P11 is the
certified copy of site plan filed in the same
proceedings.
(i) Ex.P12 is site plan of the suit land.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 17/40
(j) Ex.P13 is certified copy of judgment in criminal
case titled as State Vs. Mangat in case FIR No.
634/91, PS Mangol Puri, U/s 353/332/341/34 IPC.
(k) Ex. P14 is copy of the order dated 27.05.1994 of Ld.
MM, Delhi in criminal complaint case titled as
Raghubir Singh Vs. Dhan Singh.
(l) Ex.P15 is a House Tax Receipt no. 261076 dated
01.03.1995.
(m) Ex. P16 is copy of House Tax Notice no. 304362 for
the year 19941995.
(n) Ex. P17 is copy of the order dated 07.12.1992 passed by
Ld. ASJ, Delhi in Revision No. 39/92 in respect of
revision filed against order dated 12.03.1992 of SDM,
Punjabi Bagh in proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C.
(o) Ex. P18 is Valuation Report dated 21.07.2001 of
architect/registered valuer in respect of suit property.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 18/40
20. In crossexamination, PW1 replied that his eyesight was poor
and he could not say if his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/A
bears his thumb impression. He replied that he had not filed any
affidavit of evidence. He stated that he had only filed the plaint.
He stated that he had constructed a house on the suit land in
Khasra No. 169 which consists of five rooms, but he did not
know the area on which he had constructed his house. In cross
examination dated 17.05.2006, PW1 Mangat Ram refused to take
oath. He stated that he was not able to depose and give answer
to the questions put to him by Ld. Counsel for defendants. He
was discharged without complete crossexamination. Hence, his
testimony cannot be read in evidence.
21. PW2 is S.K. Arora, Senior Assistant, Record Room (Sessions),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi deposed that the record of criminal
revision no. 13/92, titled as Dhani Ram Vs. Smt. Renu Sharma,
decided by Ld. ADJ, Delhi on 07.12.1992 had been destroyed as
per rules on 01.07.1998.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 19/40
22. PW3 Rajesh Kumar produced the summoned record i.e. khatoni
of Village Nahar Pur pertaining to Khasra No. 169 for the year
19901991, Ex. PW3/1. He placed on record photocopy of
Khatoni for the year 199091 of Khata No. 35/36 with mutation
remark, Ex. PW3/2 and copy of Khatoni for the year 199495 of
Khata No. 35/35, Ex. PW3/3. He also produced Khasra Girdwari
for the year 200607 pertaining to Khasra No. 169 of Village
Nahar Pur, Ex. PW3/4.
23. PW4 is Kishan Chand S/o. Goverdhan Dass, R/o. H. No. 95,
Village Nahar Pur, Delhi, aged 75 years. He filed his affidavit of
evidence Ex.PW4/A in which he supported the case of plaintiffs.
As a resident of village Nahar Pur, he deposed that Mangli and
his wife Jai Devi had not adopted Ram Swaroop as their son. His
testimony is no different from the case set up by the plaintiffs in
their plaint.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 20/40
24. Mahesh Yadav, LDC, Record Room, Civil, Tis Hazari Courts,
was also inadvertently examined as PW4. He produced the
summoned record of suit no. 632/65 “Ram Swaroop Vs. Nathan,
etc.” decided on 23/05/1966 by Sh. V.K. Kaushal, SubJudge, 1 st
Class, Delhi, and record of execution no. 131/1971 filed on
03/06/1971 and consigned vide Goshwara No. 69 R.A. dated
23/05/1966. He placed on record certified copies of plaint in suit
no. 632/1965, Ex. P7, statement of Ram Swaroop, Ex. P8,
order dated 23/05/1966 passed by SubJudge, 1 st Class, Ex. P9,
report dated 27/11/1971 issued and prepared by Naib Tehsildar,
Land Acquisition, Ex. P10 and the copy of site plan Ex. P11.
25. PW5 Harvinder Pal Singh, SubRegistrar, Birth Deaths, West
Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, produced the Death Register
for the year 1983, mentioning the death of Sh. Ram Swaroop
Saini in column no.24 at entry Ex. PW5/A in the said register.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 21/40
26. PW6 M.N. Mehtani, Architect/Chartered Engineer/Valuer,
proved the Valuation Report Ex. P18 of immoveable property
bearing Khasra No. 169, Village Nahar Pur, Delhi, near Sector7,
Rohini, Delhi85, as the same being prepared and signed by him.
27. PW7 Naveen Dutt Sharma, LDC, Office of Chief Electoral
Officer, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, produced the summoned record
i.e. Voter lists for the year 1980, Polling Station No.78, Outer
Delhi Parliamentary Constituency, Village Nahar Pur,
mentioning the name of Ram Swaroop S/o. Bakhtawar at serial
no.635 vide Ex. P4.
28. PW8 T. Lakra, Kanungo, SBI Building, Record Room
(Revenue), Tis Hazari, Delhi, produced a letter issued by Sh.
Rajiv Kumar, SDM (HQ) II, Delhi, Ex. PX, regarding non
availability of original judgment, the copy of which is Ex. P3,
passed by Sh. R. Badrinath, S.D.M/R.A, Delhi, on 26/02/1970 in
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 22/40
the case of Gaon Sabha Nahar Pur, Delhi, through Panchayat
Secretary Vs. Ram Sarup S/o. Bakhtawar and statement Ex. P5
of Sh. Ram Sarup, recorded on 29/01/1970 in the aforesaid case.
29. PW9 Raghubir Singh Saini is son of Mangat Ram and grandson
of Sh. Nathan. He filed his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW9/A in
which he supported the case of plaintiff as mentioned in the
plaint. He relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex. P
1 to P18. He sought to cover up the lacunae left in the plaintiff’s
case due to incomplete testimony of PW1 Mangat Ram. The
documents Ex. P2, P7, P17 were photocopies and were
marked as Mark P9X/2, Mark P9X/7 and Mark P9X/17. Ld.
counsel for defendants took objection regarding mode of proof of
remaining documents relied upon by PW9.
30. PW10 Dayanand did not depose anything related to this case.
31. Defendants examined Dhan Singh as DW1. He filed his
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 23/40
affidavit of evidence Ex. DW1/A in which he supported the
defence taken by the defendants no. 1 to 4. He deposed that Smt.
Jai Devi W/o. Mangli had adopted Ram Swaroop S/o. Bakhtawar
as her own son in 190809 because she had no issue of her own.
In this regard, the entries were also made in the revenue record.
He relied upon the site plan of the suit property Ex. DW1/1. In
cross examination, he produced the certified copy of jamabandi
of Khasra No. 169 for the year 194748, Ex. DW1/2, in which
legal heirs of Sh. Udami were shown as cultivators of land
measuring 4 bigha 9 biswas in Khasra No. 169. Ld. defence
counsel filed the Hindi translated copy of the document Ex.
DW1/2, which was in Urdu language. He replied that he did not
have documentary proof regarding adoption of Ram Swaroop by
Jai Devi. He stated that he came to know about the adoption
from his elders. He denied the suggestion that Ram Swaroop was
not adopted by Smt. Jai Devi. During his testimony, the site plan
Ex. DW1/1 was reexhibited as Ex. DW1/P1.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 24/40
32. D1W2 is Mr. Suresh Kumar Saini, Draftsman. He deposed that
the site plan Ex. DW1/P1 was prepared by him. He stated that he
visited the site before preparing the site plan on the instructions
of Dhan Singh S/o. Late Sh. Ram Swaroop in the year 1993.
33. D1W3 Narender Kumar, Record Keeper (Revenue), Tis Hazari
Courts, produced the summoned record pertaining to jamabandi
of village Nahar Pur for the year 194748, Ex. D1W3/1. He also
produced the record of Khatoni of Khasra No. 169 of village
Nahar Pur, for the year 196465, Ex. D1W3/2. He produced
Intekal Register (mutation) pertaining to intekal no. 248 mauja
Nahar Pur, Ex. D1W3/3. Ld. defence counsel filed the Hindi
translated copies of the documents produced by D1W3, which
were in Urdu language.
34. D1W4 Narender Kumar, Kanungo, Old Tehsil Building, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, produced the summoned record pertaining
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 25/40
to LR4 Form, Ex. D1W4/1. Ld. defence counsel filed the Hindi
translated copy of the document produced by D1W4, which was
in Urdu language.
35. I have heard the final arguments and analyzed the evidence led
by parties. Now my issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.(1): Is the suit properly valued for the purpose of
Court fee and jurisdiction?
This issue was framed pursuant to objection taken by
defendants no. 1 2 in their written statement that the value of
suit land is more than Rs.20.00 lacs. This is a simple suit for
partition. The suit land is admittedly in joint holding of all the
parties to the suit. There is no issue regarding the payment of
court fees as the plaintiff was at liberty to value the suit for the
purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and court fees as per his wish.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 26/40
The defendants led no evidence to prove what was the value of
the suit land. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.4.00 lacs for the
purpose of jurisdiction of the Court for relief of partition and
paid court fees of Rs.20/ thereon. Plaintiffs also examined PW6
M.N. Mehtani to prove valuation report Ex. P18, dated
21/07/2001, as per which the value of suit property, i.e.
agricultural land measuring 3 bigha 9 biswas in Khasra No. 169,
Village Nahar Pur, Delhi, was Rs.4,36,150/. The valuation
report did not include the value of built up properties/houses of
the parties.
Defendants did not prove the plaintiff wrong regarding
valuation of the suit. Anyhow, today the objection taken by
defendants no.1 and 2 in this regard would be inconsequential as
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court covers the valuation of
Rs.20.00 lacs, as mentioned in the written statement.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 27/40
Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
36. Issue No.(2): Is the suit bad for nonjoinder of necessary
parties?
This issue was framed upon the objection taken by
defendants no.1 and 2 in the written statement. There was no
specific averment in the objection taken by defendants no.1 and
2 as to how the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties
and who else should have been joined by the plaintiffs in the
present suit but remained missing. The onus of proof of issue
no.2 was upon defendants no. 1 and 2 but they led no evidence to
prove it. Issue No.2 is decided against the defendants and in
favour of the plaintiffs.
37. Issue No.(3): What is the share of the respective parties?
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 28/40
It is admitted fact between the parties that Sh. Udami
was owner / bhumidar of land measuring 4 bigha 19 biswas in
Khasra No. 169, Village Nahar Pur, Delhi. Sh. Udami had four
sons namely Mangli, Moola, Bakhtawar and Nathan. Moola and
his wife Smt. Dhanno died issueless long ago. The bone of
contention between the parties is the issue whether Ram
Swaroop S/o. Bakhtawar was adopted by Smt. Jai Devi W/o.
Mangli? If that were so, Ram Swaroop would be considered to
be legal heir of Mangli, eligible to inherit 1/3rd share of the
estate of Sh. Udami, and ineligible to claim any share in estate of
his natural father Bakhtawar. Another issue between the parties
is whether entire holding of 4 bigha 19 biswas of land falling in
Khasra No. 169 is liable for partition, or only 3 bigha 9 biswas
thereof, as mentioned in the plaint, would be liable for partition.
The plaint itself reflects that the plaintiffs knew that in
the revenue records of Khasra No. 169, Village Nahar Pur, the
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 29/40
name of Ram Swaroop was recorded as adopted son of Smt. Jai
Devi W/o. Mangli. Plaintiffs claimed that Smt. Jai Devi did not
adopt Ram Swaroop as her son and the entries in the revenue
record in this regard were incorrect. The plaintiffs pleaded that
no reliance can be taken on those revenue entries and the
defendants cannot take any benefit of those revenue entries in
relation to the suit property. In essence, the plaintiffs sought a
declaration to that effect, without filing the suit for declaration.
The defendants No. 1 and 2 led evidence through the
documents Ex. DW1/2, Ex. D1W3/1 to Ex. D1W3/3 and Ex.
D1W4/1 to show that it was recognized by the revenue
authorities that Ram Swaroop was adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi
W/o. Mangli. The said documents are in Urdu language. The
defendants have filed true translated copies of the said
documents in Hindi language. The document Ex. DW1/2 is the
same as document Ex. D1W3/1, which is jamabandi of village
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 30/40
Naharpur, Delhi, for the year 194748 in respect of Khasra No.
169 for land measuring 4 bigha 9 biswas. In this document, Ram
Swaroop, as adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi is mentioned as
cultivator of 1/4th share of total joint holding, whereas, Nathan
and legal heirs of Bakhtawar and Moola are mentioned as
cultivators of 1/4th share each of total joint holding.
38. Similarly, LR Form-4 Ex. D1W4/1 was prepared in the year
1954 in respect of the Khasra No. 169 for land measuring 4
bigha 19 biswas. Through this document, Ram Swaroop, as
adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi is mentioned as bhumidar of 1/4th
share of total joint holding, whereas, Nathan and legal heirs of
Bakhtawar and Moola are mentioned as bhumidar of 1/4th share
each of total joint holding.
39. The document Ex. D1W3/2 is Khatoni of village Naharpur,
Delhi, for the year 196465 in respect of Khasra No. 169 for land
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 31/40
measuring 4 bigha 19 biswas. In this document, Ram Swaroop,
as adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi is mentioned as bhumidar of
1/4th share of total joint holding, whereas, Nathan and legal heirs
of Bakhtawar and Moola are mentioned as bhumidar of 1/4th
share each of total joint holding.
40. Thus, even before commencement of Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954 and Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954, revenue authorities
recognized that Ram Swaroop was adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi
W/o. Mangli, although, Ram Swaroop was natural born son of
Bakhtawar. The entries in revenue records were made
accordingly even after commencement of Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954 and Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. The adoption of
Ram Swaroop by Smt. Jai Devi was done even before
commencement of Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act, 1956.
Section 30 of the said Act provides that nothing contained in this
Act shall affect any adoption made before the commencement of
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 32/40
this Act, and the validity and effect of any such adoption shall be
determined as if this Act had not been passed. Thus, the
provisions of Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act, 1956, shall
not affect the factum of adoption of Ram Swaroop by Smt. Jai
Devi. The plaintiffs examined no one who could depose on the
basis of fact that Ram Swaroop was not adopted by Smt. Jai
Devi. The adoption of Ram Swaroop by Smt. Jai Devi is,
therefore, beyond challenge.
It does not matter that in the death certificate Ex. P2,
dated 31/07/1983, the name of father of deceased Ram Swaroop
Saini is mentioned as Sh. Bakhtawar Singh. Admittedly, Ram
Swaroop was natural born son of Sh. Bakhtawar Singh. It is of
little surprise that the death certificate mentions Sh. Bakhtawar
Singh as father of deceased Ram Swaroop. It does not, in any
manner, affect the factum of adoption of Ram Swaroop by Smt.
Jai Devi W/o. Mangli.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 33/40
It does not also matter that in the electoral roll for the
year 1980, Ex. P4, Ram Swaroop is mentioned as son of Sh.
Bakhtawar. The purpose of electoral roll is only to recognize
adult franchise of a person to facilitate voting in the elections. It
does not affect the factum of adoption of Ram Swaroop by Smt.
Jai Devi W/o. Mangli.
In fact, no document filed by the plaintiffs affect the
factum of adoption of Ram Swaroop by Smt. Jai Devi W/o.
Mangli because no witness was examined by the plaintiffs who
could depose upon personal knowledge of the facts that Ram
Swaroop was not adopted by Smt. Jai Devi W/o. Mangli. The
parties to the suit relied upon the revenue records w.e.f. 194748
upto 199495 related to the suit land, in all of which Ram
Swaroop has been mentioned as adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi.
The entries in revenue records were surely in the knowledge of
all the descendants of Sh. Udami, including the plaintiffs, but
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 34/40
they never raised any objection to the same before revenue
authorities till death of Ram Swaroop in the year 1983 or at any
time thereafter. As observed hereinabove, it is beyond challenge
now.
41. Strangely, in the Khatoni of village Naharpur in respect of suit
land for the year 1990-91 (Ex. PW3/1 and Ex. PW3/2) and
199495 (Ex. PW3/3), the share of legal heirs of Nathan are
recorded as 1/2 of total joint holding, whereas, legal heirs of
Ram Swaroop and Bakhtawar are shown as entitled to 1/4th
share each. Thus, without assigning any explanation, the revenue
authorities recorded that legal heirs of Nathan inherited the entire
1/4th share of Moola in the joint holding. This is not even the
case of plaintiffs, as legal heirs of Nathan, that they alone
inherited or were entitled to inherit the share of Moola in the
joint holding, to the exclusion of legal heirs of Bakhtawar and
Mangli. It is also not the case of plaintiffs that Moola, his wife or
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 35/40
his legal heirs had sold, gifted or otherwise transferred their
share in the joint holding in favour of Nathan or his legal heirs.
Thus, the revenue records Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/3 cannot be
relied upon to the effect that the legal heirs of Nathan inherited
entire 1/4th share of Moola in the joint holding and became
entitled to total 1/2 share in the joint holding. The legal heirs of
Bakhtawar, Nathan and Ram Swaroop would equally inherit
share of Moola who died issueless.
However, one thing is consistent in the revenue records –
Ram Swaroop is shown as a distinct sharer in the joint holding
and not merely as one of the legal heir of Bakhtawar.
42. Now I shall deal with the question as to whether entire holding
of 4 bigha 19 biswas of land falling in Khasra No. 169 is liable
for partition, or only 3 bigha 9 biswas thereof, as mentioned in
the plaint.
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 36/40
43. The original proceedings of civil suit no. 632/1965 is on record.
The said case was instituted on 16/12/1965 by Sh. Ram Swaroop
adopted son of Smt. Jai Devi against four defendants namely
Nathan S/o. Udami, and Kanhaiya, Rampat and Deepchand, all
S/o. Bakhtawar. The said suit was instituted for permanent
injunction in respect of land measuring 4 bigha 19 biswas in
Khasra No. 169, village Naharpur, Delhi. In the said suit,
plaintiff Ram Swaroop claimed to be entitled to 1/3rd share in
the joint holding of the parties. In the said suit, there is no
mention of partition of the suit property or any part thereof by
the parties. The suit was merely disposed of as compromised by
the parties upon statement dated 23/05/1966 of plaintiff Ram
Swaroop that – “the plaintiff has no objection if the defendant
no.1 constructs a boundary wall around portion of Khasra No.
169 (min.) measuring 1 bigha 10 biswa, which is in his
possession, but he shall not make any construction upon Khasra
No. 169 (min.) measuring 3 bigha and 9 biswas. This portion of
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 37/40
the Khasra No. 169 is in joint possession of the parties and all of
them have constructed their houses upon it. Some portion of this
khasra is lying vacant and no party shall make further
construction upon that vacant portion until partition. Order may
be passed accordingly and the parties be left to bear their own
costs.”
Upon the statement of plaintiff Ram Swaroop, Ld. Sub
Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, ordered on 23/05/1966 that “As per
statement given by the parties and their counsels, it is ordered
that no party shall make any further construction upon vacant
portion of Khasra No. 169, measuring 3 bigha and 9 biswas,
which is jointly owned by the parties. Defendant No.1 can make
a boundary wall around Khasra No. 169, measuring 1 bigha and
10 biswas, which is in his exclusive possession and is used by
him for agricultural purposes. Parties to bear their own costs.
The file be consigned to record room. Announced.”
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 38/40
Evidently, the order dated 23/05/1966 did not finally
determine the rights of the parties in respect of the suit land. It
does not seem that other parties to the suit no. 632/1965 had
renounced / relinquished a part of their share in favour of
defendant no.1 Sh. Nathan in the joint holding, measuring 4
bigha 19 biswa of Khasra No. 169 in Village Naharpur, Delhi.
Thus, the entire joint holding measuring 4 bigha 19 biswas of
Khasra No. 169, Village Naharpur, shall be liable for partition
between the parties.
44. In view of foregoing observation and analysis, it is held that
legal heirs of Ram Swaroop, Bakhtawar and Nathan shall be
entitled equally to 1/3rd share each in the joint holding,
measuring 4 bigha 19 biswa of Khasra No. 169 in Village
Naharpur, Delhi. The joint possession of the parties over the
above said suit property is hereby severed. The preliminary
decree of partition is passed accordingly. The parties shall be
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 39/40
entitled to exclusive possession of their respective shares in
terms of the preliminary decree. However, the appropriate
method of partition of suit property shall require further inquiry,
which shall be conducted in due course. Preliminary decree sheet
be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
VISHAL SINGH
Announced in open Court SINGH Date:
2018.02.21
15:48:35 +0530
Dated: 21/02/2018
(VISHAL SINGH)
Addl. District Judge06 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Mangat Ram Vs. Dhan Singh CS No. 14863/16 Page 40/40
