It is the case of the plaintiff that the right of such property being enjoyed by the DDA is without authority of law.The Director of DDA informed the plaintiff that the suit land was transferred to the DDA in the year 1982 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India under a package deal in pursuance to the letter dated 4/1978-55-11 on 'as is where is basis'.The plaintiff was not able to state any reason as to why the status of the properties which existed at site was not disclosed in the plaint.He conceded that he had seen the revenue records himself sometimes for the first time in 1990s and that the jauhar was very old.The sale deeds state that the vendor is the owner and 'in possession' of the land in question and the land is being sold for the bona fide needs and requirements of the vendor.The sale deeds also state that the vendor has handed over the physical possession of the land to the vendee in execution of the sale deed and that the vendor is left with no title or interest in the suit property.The land is claimed to be the exclusive property of the vendor and that the principal was alive and had not cancelled or revoked the attorney.He is to be above the greeds of the world.In fact, in his deposition he has stated that his relationship with his family ceases once he becomes a Mahant.JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.The plaintiff, claiming to be a Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir, has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and injunction through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar.The attorney is the natural born brother of the Mahant.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of 50% share of Khasra No. 629 measuring 4 bigha 2 biswa, Khasra No. 630 measuring 18 bigha 9 biswa, Khasra No. 633, 633/1, 633/2 and 633/2/1 measuring 185 bigha and 1 biswa in Village Bahapur.The remaining land after acquisition is stated to be 45 bigha and 10 biswa out of which the share of the plaintiff is stated to be 22 bigha and 15 biswa.The plaintiff claims that after demarcation of the land which resulted in Suit No. 342/1991, the plaintiff approached the Director (Lands) DDA and asked him to restore the land occupied and fenced by the DDA which measured 22 bigha and 15 biswa as the same was never acquired.The plaint sets out the cause of action for filing the suit as having arisen in the first week of January, 1998 when the plaintiff discovered that the DDA was fencing the land and apparently raised boundary walls encompassing the said land and started developing the same into a green area by trespassing in the suit property of the plaintiff.The period of limitation being 12 years, it is claimed that the cause of action had arisen only in the first week of January, 1998 and, thus, the suit was within time.The plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that the plaintiff was a lawful owner of 22 bigha and 15 biswa of land situated in village Bahapur, Delhi; a decree of possession directing the defendants (UOI as defendant No. 1, Land & Building Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as defendant No. 2 and DDA as defendant No. 3) to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove the fencing, boundary walls, if any, as also a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring and changing character of the land and from creating any third party interest in the suit property.The verification date of 25.2.1999 appears to be a typographical error as the date in the month are filled in hand while the year of 1999 is typed out.The plaintiff along with the suit filed an application under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) seeking interim relief against the DDA from raising any boundary walls around the suit property shown in the site plan in red or from changing the nature and character of the suit as also from alienating and transferring the same to any third party.This fact has been mentioned as also the date of attestation as it could have some bearing on the matter.The DDA, defendant No. 3, filed its written statement contesting the suit.It is the case of the DDA that the suit land came within Site No. 49 in terms of the sketch of the surveyed land in Kalkaji which was handed over to the DDA vide documents dated 28.9.1983 and 29.12.1983 on payment of Rs. 30.00 crores for maintenance, development and disposal of the said land under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act. The land in question is stated to be green belt maintained by the DDA.The DDA states that on verification from revenue records, some parts of Khasra Nos. 629, 630 and 633 were found to fall in Site No. 49 which were so allotted and transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation.The position about the land acquired and the remaining land has also been explained in the written statement but it is not necessary at this stage to deal with the same in detail.It is stated that as per the Jamabandi of the year 1908-09 of Khasra No. 630 there used to be a pond in the centre of the land and the land was enjoyed by the Pujaris of the Kalkaji Temple and Shamlat thok comprising of Bhramins and the Jogies in equal share.Some encroachments are alleged to have been made which have been removed by the DDA.In sum and substance, the stand of the DDA is that this land, of which the plaintiff is claiming the right, vested with the DDA for managing the same and the plaintiff had no exclusive rights over it.In the suit even issues have not been framed when applications started coming in for impleadment as parties by the applicants who claimed interest in the said land on account of the fact that it was Shamlat Thok of Brahmins and Jogies who had 50% share each in the land.It may be noticed that there is a dispute about the percentage of share of land but that aspect is also not again which has to be gone into in the present suit as a separate suit is stated to be pending in respect of the same.It was deemed expedient in the given facts of the case to issue notice to the Land and Building Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi as the position about the status of the land was not emerging clearly.This was so since it was not apparent as to how the public authority claimed possession of the land and as to whether the land had been so acquired.In pursuance to such notice, Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.It was explained that a notification was issued by the Government of India on 26.3.1949 under Section 3 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 where Khasra No. 638 has been shown as the acquired land and mentioned under Village Bahapur.In respect of Khasra No. 629, 2 bigha and 1 biswa was acquired by notification dated 13.11.1959 but the balance portion in respect of which the plaintiff claims right was stated to be a road since 1908 under the Wilson survey.Khasra No. 630 consisted of 18 bighas and 14 biswa of land out of which 5 bigha had been acquired vide notification dated 13.11.1959 while the balance 18 bigha and 9 biswa was a pond (water body) and was stated to be continuing as such.It is necessary to note what has been stated by the said two persons under oath.The plaintiff claimed that he was the disciple of Mahant Ram Nath Ji from about 1970 and became a Mahant in 1992 on the demise of Mahant Ram Nath Ji.He further stated that he could keep property as a Mahant though he would not inherit any property from his father and the property owned by the Mahant would be managed by the new Mahant.Mahant Prithvi Nath was stated to be the guru of Mahant Ram Nath Ji and Mahant Prithvi Nath Ji had made a Will bequeathing his estate to Mahant Ram Nath Ji.Mahant Ram Nath Ji is stated to have made a Will in favor of the plaintiff though it was conceded that such a Will was not filed in any proceedings so far including in relation to the dispute pending about his Mahantship.The plaintiff Mahant stated that he was a graduate by qualification and that he was aware of the present suit filed.It was further stated that the suit land consisting of 22 bigha and 16 biswa of land had a park of the DDA though it was stated that he had not seen the site as to what else existed on the land in question.He conceded that he stayed in the Kalkaji Mandir.On a query being posed, he conceded that there was a jauhar on the land and there was a road between the jauhar and the mandir.The plaintiff has stated that the plaint was not signed and verified by him but was filed through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar.The same was shown to the plaintiff before it was filed.He further could not state any reason as to why after becoming a Mahant in 1992 it had taken him eight years to file a suit for possession.The only reason given was that he was verifying the records.The plaintiff further conceded that half of the share of the total land lies with the plaintiff while the other half remains with the families of the Brahmins.After recording the statement of the plaintiff, the statement of Mr.Satish Kumar, the attorney of the plaintiff was recorded.The attorney has stated that he was running a business of trading of herbal products and was educated up to inter class.The attorney stated that he was looking after all the land affairs of the plaintiff for which he was paid a remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- per month apart from other expenses.He again reiterated that the plaint was shown to the plaintiff and that what was stated in the plaint was correct.The attorney admitted that he had gone to the site where the land is located and the land was possessed by the DDA and there was a park and a road apart from a jauhar on the road.The demarcation stated to have been carried out in the year 1989 when he was the attorney.Even at that time he was looking after the lands on behalf of the previous Guruji.It was conceded that from 1986 to the year 2000 no steps were taken to seek possession of the land though they kept on approaching the revenue authorities.The attorney has stated that he has no personal right in the land but for the first time disclosed that he had entered into agreements in respect of the suit land with the third parties and even executed sale deeds which had not been filed in Court.He categorically stated that the plaintiff was duly informed of all the transactions and that he did not inform his advocate about the same.The sale was stated to be on 'as is where is' basis and the agreement was at the rate of one lakh per bigha and on the land getting cleared, the plaintiff was to get a minimum of Rs. 500/- and the maximum amount of Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.The sale deed was stated to have been executed as attorney and the money was still lying with the attorney.The name of the purchasers was given as Mr.Mahender Pal, Mr.Akhilesh Singh and Ms.Anita Yogi with all the original documents being in the possession of the attorney.The whole land was stated to have been sold and the sale deeds duly registered.The attorney further stated that he had seen the Khasra Girdwari and Jama Bandi and the land was registered in the name of the Mahant and he obtained the documents from the revenue authorities which were filed with the plaint.In view of the said statement, the plaintiff was examined again and on being asked stated that he did not know that the land had been sold.He, however, stated that the land of the Mahant could be sold in case of necessity or need.The plaintiff claimed that it is only on 3.12.2007 that he had been informed about the sale of the land and no money had been credited to his account.He further stated that he had not specifically asked his attorney to sell the land though the land could have been sold for some charitable purposes or activities connected with the temple but not for profit motive.In view of the contradictions between what was stated by the plaintiff and the attorney, it was observed that the matter required a deeper examination.The plaintiff was stating that he had no knowledge of the sale while his attorney stated that he was fully informed of the same.A direction was issued that all documents be filed in this Court which have since been so filed.20. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff today states that the suit as framed is not maintainable as without seeking partition of the land in which the plaintiff claims 50% share, the possession could not have been asked for.The sum and substance of the opposition is that though the plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the suit, no leave ought to be granted to file any fresh suit in view of the conduct of the plaintiff who has come with unclean hands before the Court and has failed to disclose the material aspects.Interestingly a new counsel, Mr.A further plea of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that the suit, being an abuse of the process of the Court, exemplary costs ought to be imposed on the plaintiff while dismissing the suit.It is further pleaded that the present case is a fit one where proceedings must be initiated against the plaintiff and his attorney under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.).The original sale deeds have been filed on record which number seven.All the sale deeds have been executed on 26.10.1999 for different portions of land.Three sale deeds have been executed in favor of Mr.Mahender Pal, two sale deeds in favor of Smt.Anita Yogi and two sale deeds in favor of Mr.Akhilesh Singh.Mahender Pal is another brother of the plaintiff (and thus also brother of the attorney) while Smt.Anita Yogi is the wife of Mr.Mahender Pal.Akhilesh Singh is the brother of Smt.Anita Yogi.Mahender Pal and Smt.Anita Yogi are residents of Bhairon Mandir, Kalkaji while Mr.Akhilesh Singh is a resident of Rohini.The common thread which runs through all the sale deeds is that they have been executed through Mr.Satish Kumar, the attorney.Satish Kumar has a registered power of attorney so registered on 7.10.1998 and executed by the plaintiff Mahant.The said registered power of attorney is irrevocable and has been made specifically for the purposes of sale of the property in question and for obtaining necessary permissions for the same.Apart from this, authority has also been given for construction on the land obtaining, obtaining water and electricity connection, instituting legal proceedings, collecting compensation or taking allotment of alternative plot.The attorney further authorises appointment of other attornies by the attorney so appointed.An appreciation of the aforesaid facts show that the suit is replete with the concealment of material facts.

Sections cited: Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code