Satpal Singh & Ors v. Didar Singh & Anr

order dated 07.04.2006.

¶18Sardar Darshan Singh having died in the meanwhile, his heirs, the appellants, commenced a second round of litigation when they filed a suit registered as Suit No.170/2007 seeking a declaration that the decree passed in the earlier suit which was affirmed right throughout was a nullity. The claim for decree to be declared a nullity was founded on Sections 22,

24 and 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It was also alleged that the decree was obtained by playing fraud and concealment of material facts.

¶19The second suit suffered a summary rejection in as much as the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 by the defendants succeeded vide impugned order dated 23rd October, 2007.

¶20The principal reason which can be culled from the impugned order is that the parties litigated on the issue of partition and finding returned that the property was partitioned way back in the year 1963 and the three sons of Late Sardar Sant Singh went into exclusive possession of their respective shares assigned at the partition having attained finality, the issue could not be re-agitated.

¶21Though not stated in the impugned order, we note that there are no allegations as to what fraud was committed and what was the concealment of fact made when claim was predicated in the earlier suit.

¶22At the hearing today, the sole contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants is that in view of Section 22, 24 and 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred and hence the decree passed by the Civil Court is a nullity because it is settled law that where a court lacks

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute the decree is a nullity.

¶23We are afraid, the contention urged by learned counsel for the appellants is totally misplaced and cannot be accepted. The reason is obvious. The suit filed in the year 1981 by Sardar Didar Singh did not challenge any order passed by any authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The foundation of the suit, as noted above was that Sardar Darshan Singh was a mere benamidar and that was evidenced by the manner in which the compensation claims were adjusted as consideration for grant of the perpetual leasehold rights. The real owner of the property was Late Sardar Sant Singh, who during his lifetime got effected a partition of the property with the consent of his three sons i.e. Sardar Didar Singh, Sardar Darshan Singh and Sardar Surinder Singh. The battle was fought on the issue of partition being effected or not. Evidence was led and decision went in favour of Sardar Didar Singh.

¶24Neither a dispute was raised and none was settled pertaining to legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The suit sought a declaration based on a family settlement partitioning the house. The subject matters was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Thus the instant shit is clearly an abuse of the process of law and is no maintainable.

¶25The appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs. We impose cost of Rs.50,000/- on the appellants. Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the respondents for harassment and Rs.25,000/- would be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority as recompense to the state for waste of valuable judicial time.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

J.R. MIDHA, J

DECEMBER 02, 2008

aj

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.598/2007 Date of decision: 02nd December, 2008 % SATPAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through : Mr. A.C. Bhasin and Mr. Amit Bhasin, Advs. versus DIDAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Rajkumar Sherawat, Adv. for R-1&2. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A frivolous appeal has been filed which merits dismissal with exemplary costs. 3. Litigation between the parties commenced way back in the year 1981 when Sardar Didar Singh filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. Subject matter of the dispute was property bearing No.F-18 A & B, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. 4. Case pleaded by Sardar Didar Singh that the father of the parties, Sardar Sant Singh was a displaced person from Pakistan and at the time of partition of this country in the 1947 had reached India as a refugee leaving behind immovable property in West Pakistan. It was alleged that Sardar Sant Singh was assessed to a compensation claim for properties left behind in Pakistan. It was averred that Sardar Sant Singh transferred his compensation claim to his son Sardar Darshan Singh, impleaded as defendant No.1, in the said suit. It was pleaded that the Ministry of Rehabilitation proceeded to convey perpetual leasehold rights in the name of Sardar Darshan Singh recording him to be the perpetual lessee of the property in question for which, consideration of premium towards the compensation assessed in the name of Sardar Sant Singh was adjusted. Asserting in the plaint that during his lifetime Sardar Sant Singh got effected a partition of the property by mutual consent of his three sons i.e. Sardar Didar Singh, Sardar Darshan Singh and Sardar Surinder Singh and that since said date the respective sons of Sardar Sant Singh went into exclusive possession of the respective portion assigned to them at the partition, evidenced by the fact that each son started paying house tax separately for his portion assigned to him at the time of partition and that the maintenance of the respective portion was by the concerned owner thereof, decree of declaration that it be declared that a partition had taken place resulting in the three sons of Sardar Sant Singh being owners of the respective portion assigned to him. 5. The defence taken by Sardar Darshan Singh, who alone disputed the claim was that being the recorded perpetual lessee of the property he was the owner thereof. He denied that the property was ever partitioned. 6. On the pleadings of the parties 8 issues were settled in the said suit. Same are as under:- "1) Whether the savings and earnings of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 were also invested in respect of the purchase of the property in suit? OPP. 2) Whether there was any family partition between the parties as alleged in paras 9 and 10 of the plaint? If so to what effect? OPP. 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? OPP. Note: This issue is amended vide order dated 30.09.1983. 4) Whether the suit is bad by Sec.80(2) CPC? OPD. 5) Whether the suit has not been valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 6) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 7) Whether the defendant No.1 is the sole owner of the property in suit? OPD. 8) Relief. 7. Extensive evidence was led by the parties. Briefly noted, PW-2, Shri S.K. Burman, officer from the Land and Development Office deposed that on 17.02.1956, Ex.PW2/1, a letter was received from Sardar Sant Singh requesting the department that compensation claim assessed in his favour in the sum of Rs.4,855/- be adjusted while conveying the perpetual leasehold rights in the property in question in favour of his son and that an asser