Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - On 22nd November, 2019 when this suit came up first before this Court, the following order was passed;

"3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for declaration of his ownership on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit of possession, of a piece of land ad measuring 1150 sq. yds. in Khasra No.409, situated at Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff of the said plot.

4. I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, how the plaintiff, on the basis of unregistered document, be declared as owner.

5. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the documents are of 1987 and the land is situated in an unauthorised colony registrations with respect to transfers wherein are not done.

6. The same would not still make the plaintiff the owner of the land.

7. The counsel for the plaintiff seeks adjournment.

8. The plaintiff though has valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.3 crores, to institute the suit in this Court, but the suit insofar as for the purpose of injunction is valued at Rs.130/- only and thus, once the relief of declaration is not maintainable in law, the relief if any of injunction will have to be claimed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi.

9. I may in this context also mention that in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 [LQ/SC/2008/747] an inquiry of title cannot be in a suit for injunction simplicitor and without an inquiry into title it will not be possible to grant any injunction also, especially in view of the pleadings of the plaintiff, of the defendant having illegally grabbed the land and wherefrom it appears that it is the defendant and not the plaintiff who is presently in possession of the land.

10. The plaintiff to consider all the said aspects also.

11. Subject to the plaintiff depositing costs of Rs.10,000/- with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust, list on 6th December, 2019."

2. The plaintiff first filed IA No.17229/2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was allowed on 20th December, 2019. On consideration of the amended plaint, on 7th January, 2020, the following order was passed:

"1. The amended plaint has been perused and it is found that the questions raised and recorded in the order dated 27th November, 2019 remain. The plaintiff cannot be granted relief of declaration of ownership on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, will and affidavit of possession and the valuation of the suit is also composite for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction and once the suit for declaration is not maintainable, the plaint has to be rejected.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 [LQ/SC/2009/1322] and (2012) 1 SCC 656 [LQ/SC/2011/1337] poses a problem for agreement purchasers with possession in part performance and who, for diverse reasons, may be unable to sue for specific performance.

3. Even if persons like the plaintiff are in any difficulty, they having opted to enter into an agreement with respect to land in unauthorised colonies which have come up over public land, are not entitled to any relief from the Court.

4. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the colony can be unauthorised not only for the reason of being on public land but also for the reason of being on agricultural land.

5. The same, in my view, would not make any difference. Even if the colony is on agricultural land, use thereof for nonagricultural purpose would itself lead to vesting of the land in the Gram Sabha and for this reason also, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief. Moreover, this is a matter of public records, whether the subject unauthorised colony is on agricultural land or on public land.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff seeks time to consider.

7. List on 22nd January, 2020."

3. The plaintiff thereafter filed IA No.1686/2020 for amendment of the plaint which came up before this Court on 22nd January, 2020, when the counsel for the plaintiff stated that he was further revaluating the matter. On request, the suit was adjourned to 6th February, 2020.

4. On 6th February, 2020, when the suit was listed before this Court, yet another application for amendment of the plaint, being IA No.1696/2020 was for consideration.

5. On 6th February, 2020, both the applications for amendment were considered and the counsel heard thereon and after substantive hearing, on request of counsel for the plaintiff, the hearing adjourned to today.

6. On 6th February, 2020, it was found that the amendments sought in the applications did not still answer the query, how the plaintiff, claiming to be merely an agreement purchaser under an unregistered agreement to sell, could seek the relief of declaration of ownership of the property.

7. The counsel for the plaintiff on 6th February, 2020 stated that I may re-consider/review my dicta in Bishan Chand Vs. Ved Prakash,2018 SCCOnLineDel 11408 holding that Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 [LQ/SC/2009/1322] and (2012) 1 SCC 656 [LQ/SC/2011/1337] is retrospective in operation. Again, the difficulties faced by purchasers of properties/parts of the properties under unregistered Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will, Receipt, Letter of Possession etc. were cited, to contend that the Courts have to find a solution to protect the rights of such persons.

8. The counsel for the plaintiff has today drawn attention to the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorized Colonies) Act, 2019 notified on 12th December, 2019, and has taken me through Section 3 thereof which is as under:-

"3.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 as applicable to the National Capital Territory of Delhi or any rules or regulations or bye-laws made thereunder and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & others, dated the 11th October, 2011, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, regularise the transactions of immovable properties based on the latest Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, Will, possession letter and other documents including documents evidencing payment of consideration for conferring or recognising right of ownership or transfer or mortgage in regard to an immovable property in favour of a resident of an unauthorised colony.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, fix charges on payment of which transactions of immovable properties based on the latest Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, Will, possession letter and other documents including documents evidencing payment of consideration for conferring or recognising right of ownership or transfer or mortgage in regard to an immovable property in favour of a resident of an unauthorised colony through a conveyance deed or authorisation slip, as the case may be.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable on the amount mentioned in the conveyance deed or authorisation slip, as the case may be.

(4) Any resident of an unauthorised colony having registered or un-registered or notarised Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, Will, possession letter and other documents including documents evidencing payment of consideration shall be eligible for right of ownership or transfer or mortgage through a conveyance deed or authorisation slip, as the case, may be, on payment of charges referred to in sub-section (2).

(5) No stamp duty and registration charges shall be payable on any previous sale transactions made prior to any transaction referred to in sub-section (4).

(6) The tenants, licensees or permissive users shall not be considered for conferring or recognising any property rights under this Act."

9. The counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the said legislation, recently promulgated, is for the benefit of people such as the plaintiff and should be given full effect.

10. However a bare perusal of Section 3 supra would show that the same only empowers the Central Government to confer or recognise title on the basis of Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale, possession letter and other documents including documents evidencing payment of consideration but does not by itself confer or create or recognise title on the basis of such documents. Admittedly the Central Government till date has not recognised the title claimed by the plaintiff, for this Court to declare the plaintiff as owner on the basis of such recognition or conferment. In fact, on such recognition or conferment if any, there would be no need for the plaintiff to seek declaration of title as owner, in this suit. Thus, in my view, the plaintiff on the basis of the said legislation also is not entitled to maintain the suit for declaration of ownership on the basis of Agreement to Sale, General Power of Attorney, Will, affidavit of possession, etc.

11. The counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the promulgation of the legislation aforesaid indicates the intent of the Government to so confer title and before the Government has had an occasion to exercise power under the said legislation, if this suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, the plaintiff would suffer injury.

12. This Court cannot entertain suits for reliefs, for which cause of action in law is not available today, and on the ground that the same may be available in future. Maintainability of the suit in law, has to be seen on the date when the suit comes up for admission and as per the prevalent law, the suit for relief of declaration of ownership is not maintainable in law as of today. The question of the plaintiff suffering any injury or prejudice also does not arise as the cause of action if any accruing in future, would be unaffected by any adjudication today.

13. The counsel for the plaintiff then contends that though the Division Bench of this Court in Zubair Ul Abidin [DR.] Vs. Sameena Abidin @ Sameena Khan, (2014) 214 DLT 340 (DB) has held that the plaint can be rejected in part but the view in Shri Satya Pal Gupta Vs. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, (2016) 230 DLT 73 (DB), Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780 [LQ/SC/2017/1213] and Roop Lal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487 [LQ/SC/1982/156] is to the contrary and which judgments suggest that there can be no rejection of the plaint in part. It is thus contended that the reliefs claimed in the suit, being of declaration of ownership as well as of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the property and/or from dealing with the property, the plaint cannot be rejected qua the relief of declaration only and not qua the relief of permanent injunction and has to be entertained in entirety.

14. I am unable to agree. Even in Zubair Ul Abidin supra, the judgments including in Roop Lal Sathi supra, holding the rejection in part of the plaint being impermissible, were considered and it was held that the said principle cannot compel trial of claims which are barred by or unsustainable in law and segregable from other claims. Here, the relief claimed of declaration of title as owner is segregable from the relief claimed of permanent injunction against forcible dispossession and the cause of action for the two is distinct. The cause of action for the relief of permanent injunction is settled possession and threat to dispossess and the enquiry therein is limited to this aspect. As already observed in order dated 22nd November, 2019 reproduced above, in a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor, investigation into title is not required. Moreover, a plaintiff, merely by clubbing an untenable relief with another, cannot be permitted to abuse the process of the Court by forcing the Court to undertake a trial on something which is required to be shut out/thrown out at the threshold. In Satyapal Gupta supra, the Division Bench differed with the reasoning on merits for rejection of part of the claim and in Sejal Glass Ltd. supra it was found on pleadings that the plaint could not be proceeded in some part. Such is not the case here.

15. I also do not find any ground to review or re-consider my decision in Bishan Chand supra, that Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. supra is retrospective in operation. Rather, Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. supra itself in paragraph 26 records that it merely declares the law as existing and has not declared any new law. The counsel for the plaintiff has also been unable to show any law under which the plaintiff, merely by having an agreement to purchase of an immovable property in his favour, can become the owner of the said immovable property.

16. Agreement purchasers do not have any right in the property/land agreed to be purchased. The Court, as far back as in Jiwan Das Vs. Narain Das, (1981) AIR Delhi 291 held that an Agreement to Sell does not create any right in the property to which it pertains and merely gives a right to the agreement purchaser to seek specific performance thereof. It was further held that no rights in immovable property are created, even on passing of decree for specific performance and till in execution thereof a Sale Deed is executed.

17. Thus, the suit, insofar as for the relief sought of declaration of ownership on the basis of General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit of Possession, even post amendment sought, including by way of the aforesaid two applications, does not lie and no suit therefor can be entertained and/or set in motion.

18. The plaintiff, besides the relief of declaration has also sought the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the property and/or from dealing with the property.

19. However the suit, as per paragraph 17 of the amended plaint dated 4th December, 2019 is valued jointly for the purposes of declaration and permanent injunction at Rs.3 crores and no separate valuation as required in law to be given for the relief of declaration and injunction, has been given.

20. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff undertakes to value the suit above the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, separately for the relief of permanent injunction alone.

21. Axiomatically, the plaint, insofar as for the relief of declaration of ownership of the plaintiff of land admeasuring 1150 sq.yds in Khasra No.409, situated at Abul Fazal Enclave Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will, affidavit of possession, is rejected. The plaintiff is held entitled to maintain the suit only for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering and disturbing the possession claimed by the plaintiff of the property and to restrain the defendant from dealing with or creating third party rights in the property.

22. The plaintiff to thus file an amended plaint confined to the relief of permanent injunction and pay appropriate court fees thereon.

23. Ia No.1686/2020 and IA No.1696/2020 are disposed of

24. On request, list on 27th February, 2020.