INDERMEET KAUR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 16.2.2006 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 05.6.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs Sunder Singh and another seeking recovery of possession of the suit property comprising of 3 biswas in khasra No.1233/3/8 and 2 biswas in 1233/1/1 (total 5 biswas) i.e. about 250 sq. yards situated in village Kishan Garh, Mehraulim New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ,,the suit property) had been decreed in his favour.
(2.) CONTENTION of the plaintiff is that they are the owners of the suit property. Defendants had illegally designed to usurp the suit property. Upon the death of their father Mani Ram defendants forcibly took possession of this suit land. On 03.11.1989 defendants undertook to restore possession back to the plaintiff but to no avail. Suit was accordingly filed. In the written statement, the defendants denied the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit property; it was stated that the civil court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the DLRA). On the pleadings of the parties, the following seven issues were framed: "1. Whether the plaintiff has locus standti to file the present suit? 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has not correctly depicted the property in dispute? OPD 5. Whether defendant no.2 has become owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession? OPD 6. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit under the provision of Delhi Land Reofmrs Act? OPD 7. Relief."
(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. Trial judge returned a finding in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed. This was affirmed in appeal. This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on 03.8.2010 the following substantial question of was formulated:- "Whether the impugned judgment dated 16.2.2006 had not correctly appreciated the effect of the provisions of Section 150 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, if so, its effect?";