Valmiki J Mehta, J. - (1.) THE challenge by means of the regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.1.2000 whereby the suit of the Appellant/Plaintiff has been dismissed as not maintainable by treating certain issues as preliminary issues. It has been held by the impugned judgment that the suit is barred both under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
(2.) AT the outset, I must note that it is conceded by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that the dismissal of the suit as not maintainable on the basis of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is not correct because the lands in question are governed by the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and as per Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 a suit lies in a civil Court challenging the mutation of the record of rights. The only issue, therefore, to be considered by me, in this appeal, is whether the suit is not maintainable as per proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Appellant and the Respondents are legal heirs of late Sh. Udai Singh. They are either the sons or the daughters or the widow of pre -deceased son or the legal heirs of pre -deceased son. The daughter -in -law of Udai Singh was Defendant No. 15 in the trial Court and Respondent No. 15 in the present appeal. Respondent No. 15 is the wife of Respondent No. 6/Defendant No. 6. Sh. Darshan Singh.
(3.) LATE Sh. Udai Singh had properties being agricultural land in village Barwala, Delhi as also residential house therein, and agricultural land in village Alipur, Delhi. Sh. Udai Singh is said to have died leaving behind his registered Will dated 6.11.1996. On the basis of this registered Will, the Appellant/Plaintiff got a lesser share in the properties of Udai Singh as compared to his other brothers and therefore the subject suit was filed in which the Appellant has claimed the following reliefs: i. That a decree of declaration to the effect that the will dated 6.11.96 executed by the deceased Shri Uday Singh in favour of the Defendants be declared as null and void and be cancelled and the consequential order of mutation dated 13.1.98 based on the above will sanctioned by the Tehsildar vide Mutation order No. 3025 in favour of the Defendants and Plaintiffs be also declared void. b) a decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 9.11.95 executed by the Defendant No. 15 in favour of the Defendant No. 6 purported to have been sold land situated in vill. Alipur as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint measuring 21 bigha 9 biswas being document No. 17175 Vol. No. 1 Addl. Vol. No. 8184 pages 134 to 137 dated 9.11.95 and the unregistered general power of attorney dated 31.3.93 be declared null and void and be cancelled and the consequence order of mutation dt. 11.1.96 bearing Mutation No. 1709 based on the above mentioned sale deed sanctioned by the Tehsildar Delhi in favour of the Defendant No. 6 be also declared void and without jurisdiction. c) a decree of partition be also passed pertaining to the suit property situated in vill. Barwala and Vill. Alipur as mentioned in para No. 2. d) as a consequential relief the Defendants and their agents, servants and representatives be restrained by means of a decree of permanent injunction from selling, alienating, transferring or disposing or creating any third party interest on the suit land in any manner whatsoever pertaining to the suit land as mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint situated in Vill. Barwala and Vill. Alipur, Delhi. e) The costs of the suit and or any other order or direction or relief be also passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.;