NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8263 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO(S). 22118 OF 2018)

LT. COL. PARAMJIT SINGH DHILLON      …..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

HARINDER SINGH GHUMAN     ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8264 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO(s). 20655 OF 2019)

(Dy. NO. 28401/2018)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Both  the  appeals  although  arise  from  separate  orders

passed in the independent proceedings instituted but relates to

partition of the estate of late Col. Kultar Singh Dhillon (for short

K.S. Dhillon) who expired on 6th January, 2012 leaving behind

1

two  legal  heirs,  i.e.  son  Lt.  Col.  Paramjit  Singh  Dhillon  and

daughter Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman.

3. Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuham filed a suit for partition in

the High Court of Delhi on 14th February, 2012.  At a later point

of time, i.e.  on 5th May, 2012, Lt. Col.  Paramjit  Singh Dhillon

filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, SBS Nagar, Punjab on the

basis  of  will  of  late  Shri  K.S.  Dhillon.   With  the  consent  of

parties, both the appeals are decided by a common judgment.

4. The brief facts are that late Shri K.S. Dhillon died on 6th

January, 2012 leaving behind two legal heirs, i.e. son Lt. Col.

Paramjit  Singh  Dhillon  and  daughter  Smt.  Harinder  Singh

Ghuman.  Their mother and wife of late Shri K.S. Dhillon, Smt.

Jatinder  Kaur  passed away on 1st June,  2004.   There are no

other legal heirs except the two siblings, namely, Smt. Harinder

Singh  Ghuman  and  Lt.  Col.  Paramjit  Singh  Dhillon  who  are

senior citizens and are aged 69 years and 67 years.

5. It is unfortunate that despite the matter sent for mediation

on two-three occasions having an opportunity to the parties to

sit  across  the  table  and  resolve  their  inter  se  disputes  in

2

reference to the property/estate of  late  Shri  K.S.  Dhillon but

unfortunately the process of mediation could not succeed.

6. Even  after  the  matter  was  instituted  in  this  Court,  the

parties were asked to settle through the process of mediation

under the belief that both are senior citizens and will think with

positivity in restoring their  relations ruling out the bitterness

intervened  in  their  families,  but  unfortunately  the  mediation

could not succeed.  But we are still hopeful that both of them

may sit together to resolve their inter se dispute and will not

leave behind litigation in legacy to their children.    

7. Both  the  parties  jointly  made  a  request  to  decide  the

appeals on merits.

Facts of Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s). 22118 of 2018

8. The suit for partition bearing CS(OS) No. 373 of 2012 was

filed by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman on 14th February, 2012 in

the original side of the Delhi High Court.  Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh

Dhillon (defendant) appeared on 15th February, 2012 and the

3

parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the

estate left  behind by their father late Shri  K.S.  Dhillon.  The

defendant in the suit  Lt.  Col.  Paramjit  Singh Dhillon filed his

written  statement  and  on  the  basis  of  the  pleadings  of  the

parties, issues were framed on 30th January, 2015, the matter

was  proceeded  for  recording  of  evidence  before  the  local

Commissioner.

9. At this stage, the defendant- Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon

filed  an  application  under  Order  7  Rule  11  Code  of  Civil

Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the suit plaint on the ground

that out of the properties of which partition is being sought, the

property which is  situated in  Delhi  is  governed by the Delhi

Land Reforms Act, 1954, and hence it is barred under Section

185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.  With respect to the

other properties which are agricultural lands in Punjab, a similar

provision in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is relied upon.

It was further pleaded in the application that as per Section 16

of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit for immovable property

which is not situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi will

not lie in Delhi.  It was also pleaded by the defendant that the

4

suit against the plaintiff Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman has been

filed in the competent Court in the State of Punjab, hence the

instant suit cannot continue.

10.  The Single Judge took note of the rival submissions made

by the parties but did not find any substance in the application

filed  under  Order  7  Rule  11  of  Code of  Civil  Procedure  and

dismissed the application vide order dated 27th January, 2016.   

11. Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge of High Court of

Delhi  dismissing  the  application  for  rejectment  of  the  suit

plaint, appeal came to be preferred by the defendant that also

came to be dismissed vide detailed judgment dated 19th July,

2018  noticing  the  fact  that  the  territorial  jurisdiction  in

reference  to  the  properties  in  Punjab  appears  to  be

misconceived for the reason that Section 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure  states  that  where  more  than  one  court  has

jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any Court where any of the

immovable property is  situated and that  apart  so far  as the

property situated in Delhi and in Punjab is concerned, the same

will not result in complete rejectment of the suit plaint in view

5

of the issues which are framed in the pending proceedings and

the order passed of the Division Bench of the High Court dated

19th July,  2018  rejecting  the  application  for  dismissal  of

rejectment  of  the  suit  plaint  filed  at  the  instance  of  Smt.

Harinder Singh Ghuman came to be challenged in Civil Appeal

arising out of SLP(C) No.  22118 of 2018 by Lt.  Col.  Paramjit

Singh Dhillon (defendant in the suit).

Facts of Civil Appeal @ SLP(C ) No. 20655 of 2019

12. The  respondent(plaintiff)  Lt.  Col.  Paramjit  Singh  Dhillon

filed  a  suit  in  the  Court  of  Civil  Judge,  Senior  Division,  SBS

Nagar, Punjab seeking declaration that the respondent-plaintiff

is  the  absolute  owner  and  possession  of  the  properties

indicated in the suit plaint on the basis of the will of late Shri

K.S. Dhillon.  The suit filed at the instance of the respondent-

plaintiff in Punjab includes the estate of late Shri K.S. Dhillon

and to give jurisdiction to the Civil Judge in SBS Nagar, included

the property which is situated in the territorial  jurisdiction of

Civil Judge, SBS Nagar which in fact as alleged belongs to late

6

Smt. Jatinder Kaur (their  mother).  That late Smt. Jatinder Kaur

succeeded to the property from her maternal side.   

13. Although there is a dispute that their late father Shri K.S.

Dhillon also have 1/3rd share in the estate of his wife late Smt.

Jatinder Kaur.  The plea of Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman is that

the property at SBS Nagar was of late Smt. Kulbhagwant Kaur

devolved upon her eight children including their mother Late

Smt. Jatinder Kaur, leaving behind Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman

and Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon in equal shares by natural

course  of  succession.   At  the  same  time,  the  claim  of  the

defendant Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon is that it has devolved

1/3rd share in favour of each after her death on 1st June, 2004

and 1/3rd share of estate of late Smt. Jatinder Kaur succeeded

by their father late Shri K.S. Dhillon who expired on 6th January,

2012.  We are not supposed to dwell on the question at this

stage and it has to be examined in the pending proceedings

before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

14. Smt.  Harinder  Singh  Ghuman  as  defendant  in  the

proceedings in the civil suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge, SBS

7

Nagar,  Punjab  also  filed  her  written  statement  and  on  the

pleadings of the parties, issues were framed.  It reveals from

the record that  she also moved as number of  miscellaneous

applications, as may be possible, to defer the proceedings for

one  or  the  other  reason.   Her  application  for  rejectment  of

plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was

dismissed on 3rd September, 2016 and additional issues 3A and

3B were later on framed vide order dated 26th September, 2016

which are reproduced as under:-

“3A Whether Kultar Singh had inherited the suit property  situated  at  Nawanshahara  from  Jatinder Kaur his wife? OPD

3B. Whether Kultar Singh had inheritable right in the property of Jatinder Kaur his wife inherited from her from her parents? OPD”

15. At this stage, application was filed by Smt. Harinder Singh

Ghuman as a defendant under Order 14 Rule 2(1) of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 for deciding the additional issues, i.e. 3A

and 3B, as a preliminary issue.

16. After  the  matter  being  heard  at  length,  the  trial  Judge

dismissed the application assigning cogent reasons as to why it

8

is not in the interest of the parties for deciding additional issues

as preliminary issues as prayed for vide order dated 15th April,

2017  that  came to  be  challenged in  the  writ  petition  under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed at the instance of

the defendant Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman which also came to

be dismissed after assigning cogent and valid reasons under

Order dated 4th April, 2018.

17. Both the learned counsels have supported their respective

pleas  and so far as the application filed in the pending suit in

the Delhi High Court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned,

learned counsel for Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman submits that

Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is not applicable as

the  area  where  the  subject  property  is  situated  has  been

“urbanised” under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

The Delhi  Land Reforms Act would only be applicable to the

lands  which  are  rural  in  nature  and  after  issuance  of  a

notification  under  Section  507(a)  of  the  Delhi  Municipal

Corporation Act, 1957 dated 23rd May, 1963, the subject land

ceased  to  be  rural  land and has  been  declared  “urbanised”

which is not under the jurisdiction of the Land Reforms Act.

9

18. Learned counsel further submits that in view of Section 17

of  the  Code of  Civil  Procedure,  1908,  where  more  than one

court has a jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any one Court

where  any  one  immovable  property  is  situated  and  further

submits that Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887

will  not  have  any  application  from the  relief  which  she  has

claimed in the suit filed for partition of the estate of late Shri

K.S. Dhillon in the High Court of Delhi.

19. So far as the Civil Appeal @ SLP( C ) No. 22118 of 2018

preferred  by  Smt.  Harinder  Singh  Ghuman  is  concerned,

learned counsel submits that the additional issues which were

framed as 3A and 3B goes into the root of the matter and if

such issues are decided first as the preliminary issue, further

issues which are framed may not require any adjudication.

20. Per  contra,  learned  counsel  for  Lt.  Col.  Paramjit  Singh

Dhillon submits that the application which he filed under Order

7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court of

Delhi has exceeded its jurisdiction in taking note of the written

10

statement.  To the contrary, at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is the plaint which alone is to

be looked into as to whether the suit is barred by law but the

High Court of Delhi has looked into the written statement to

non-suit his claim for rejectment of the suit plaint and submits

that  so  far  as  the  objection  raised  by  Smt.  Harinder  Singh

Ghuman  to  decide  additional  issues  3A  and  3B  as  the

preliminary issues in  the first  instance,  cogent reasons have

been assigned by the trial  Judge and confirmed by the High

Court under the impugned judgment.  That apart, the additional

issues framed certainly have to be looked into on the basis of

the evidence on record and the matter is at its advanced stage,

in the given facts and circumstances, confining the additional

issues  to  be  answered  at  the  first  instance  will  delay  the

proceedings and this what the High Court has observed in the

order impugned.

21. We have heard the learned counsel  for  the parties and

after going through the records, we are of the view that both

the  appeals  are  without  substance  and  deserves  to  be

dismissed for the reason that in the suit for partition filed at the

11

instance of Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman in the High Court of

Delhi, while examining the application filed by Lt. Col. Paramjit

Singh Dhillon under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, cogent reasons have

been assigned by the Single Judge of the High Court in the first

instance and confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court

in appeal preferred at the instance of Lt. Col.  Paramjit Singh

Dhillon and we are in agreement of the view expressed and

does not call for our interference.

22. So far as the plea raised by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman

in the pending suit before the SBS Nagar, Punjab is concerned,

the trial Judge has taken note of the facts in detail and arrived

to the conclusion that no useful purpose will be served in taking

additional  issues 3A and 3B as the preliminary issues taking

note of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2012 and

proceedings could not have been followed up further because

of the interim applications being filed one after the other and

there is a direction of the High Court to dispose of the pending

suit expeditiously, in the given circumstances, the trial Judge

felt it appropriate that the matter be decided along with the

other  issues  pending  adjudication  and  that  view  has  been

12

confirmed  by  the  High  Court  in  its  revisional  jurisdiction

assigning cogent reasons.  We are of the view that the reasons

assigned are unassailable.

23. We  do  not  find  any  substance  in  the  civil  appeals  on

merits  but  looking  into  the  peculiar  facts  which  has  been

brought to our notice that for the self-same subject property,

suit for partition bearing no. CS(OS) No. 373 of 2012 has been

filed by Smt.  Harinder  Singh Ghuman in  the original  side of

Delhi High Court and at the same time, suit has been filed by

Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior

Division, SBS Nagar, Punjab seeking declaration that plaintiff is

the absolute owner and possession of the properties indicated

in the suit plaint on the basis of the will of late Shri K.S. Dhillon.

The plea on which rights have been claimed by the parties inter

se may be different but the subject property being the same

and parties are the legal heirs of late Shri K.S. Dhillon, to avoid

conflicting  views  and  multiplicity  of  litigation,  it  has  been

considered  that  both  the  matters  be  clubbed  and  be  heard

together.  

13

24. Consequently, both the appeals are devoid of merit and

accordingly  dismissed.   It  is  further  directed that  Suit  C No.

121/12(new no. being C No. 18704 of 2013) filed by Lt.  Col.

Paramjit  Singh  Dhillon  in  the  Court  of  Civil  Judge,  Senior

Division,  SBS  Nagar,  Punjab  be  transferred  alongwith  the

records  and  be  tagged  along  with  suit  for  partition  bearing

CS(OS) No. 373 of 2012 filed by Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman

on the file of the Delhi High Court and be further tried from that

stage.  Since both the litigating parties are senior citizens and

their  matters are pending for  the last seven years,  the High

Court  of  Delhi  is  requested  to  decide  the  matter  as

expeditiously as possible.

25. Copies of the orders may be sent to the concerned Courts

for necessary compliance.

26. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

…………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

…………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI)

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 24, 2019  

14