SC Dismisses Appeal in Delhi Land Dispute, Upholds Possession Rights

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Kirpa Ram, upholding the decisions of the lower courts in a long-standing land dispute concerning Khasra No. 238 in Village Basai Darapur, Delhi. The case involved issues of ownership, possession, and jurisdiction of the civil courts in resolving boundary disputes between two revenue villages.

Background of the Case

The dispute dates back to 1971 when the respondents, Surendra Deo Gaur and others, filed a suit for permanent injunction against Kirpa Ram and the Refugees’ Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of Khasra No. 238, measuring 4 Bighas 3 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Basai Darapur, Delhi.

Earlier, the plaintiffs had challenged the vesting of the land in the Gaon Sabha, and a declaration suit filed in 1959 was decreed in their favor in 1960. The Union of India attempted to set aside this decree under Section 161-B of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, but its application was dismissed in 1968. Despite this, the defendants claimed that Khasra No. 238 was part of the land allotted to them, leading to the present suit.

Arguments by the Appellant (Kirpa Ram’s Legal Representatives)

The appellants, represented by senior counsel, raised the following arguments:

• The suit was not maintainable as the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to Bhumidari land under Section 85 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
• The plaintiffs were not in possession of the land, making a suit for permanent injunction unsustainable.
• The land in dispute was not part of Khasra No. 238 in Village Basai Darapur but was instead Khasra No. 79 in Village Shakarpur.
• The first appellate court did not decide the jurisdiction issue first, causing prejudice to the appellants.
• The High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents countered these claims, arguing:

• The suit was correctly filed in the civil court as it sought an injunction against trespassers and not a declaration of Bhumidari rights.
• The plaintiffs’ ownership of Khasra No. 238 had been established in previous litigation, and the present case was only to protect their possession.
• The defendants had no right over Khasra No. 238 and had falsely claimed possession based on a different land parcel (Khasra No. 79 in Shakarpur).
• The appellants’ claim regarding jurisdiction and additional evidence were raised only to delay proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, making the following key observations:

1. Civil Court’s Jurisdiction

The Court clarified that the suit was for an injunction based on possession, not a declaration of title under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It ruled:

“The jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred in cases where the relief sought is protection of possession and not determination of Bhumidari rights.”

2. Ownership and Possession of Khasra No. 238

The Court reaffirmed the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession over Khasra No. 238, citing previous judgments and revenue records. It noted:

“The plaintiffs are the rightful owners of Khasra No. 238, and the defendants have no claim over this land.”

3. Misleading Claims About Khasra No. 79

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the land in dispute was Khasra No. 79 in Village Shakarpur, ruling:

“The appellants’ reliance on Khasra No. 79 is misplaced as the suit land is situated in Village Basai Darapur, not Shakarpur.”

4. Additional Evidence Was Not Necessary

The Court upheld the lower courts’ decision to reject the appellants’ plea for additional evidence, stating:

“Additional evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage to cover up deficiencies in pleadings and arguments before the trial court.”

5. No Substantial Question of Law in Second Appeal

The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that the High Court should have framed substantial questions of law before deciding the second appeal.

“If the High Court finds no error in the findings of the first appellate court, it is not obliged to frame substantial questions of law.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
• The jurisdiction of the civil court was valid, and the suit was maintainable.
• The plaintiffs’ possession and ownership of Khasra No. 238 were upheld.
• No substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the principle that civil courts have jurisdiction to protect possession rights, even in cases involving agricultural land. The decision upholds the importance of established ownership and prevents misrepresentation of land boundaries in legal disputes. By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed legal precedents governing land disputes and provided clarity on jurisdictional issues in property litigation.

Petitioner Name: Kirpa Ram (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Ors..
Respondent Name: Surendra Deo Gaur & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Basai Darapur, Delhi, India.
Judgment Date: 16-11-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kirpa Ram (Deceased) vs Surendra Deo Gaur & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category