Important Point – Order I Rule 3 and Order I Rule 5 and Order II Rule 3 CPC cannot be invoked when in respect of one of causes of action, Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try suit.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

I.A. No.23810/2015 (Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC)

1. The aforesaid application has been moved by defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. Before setting out the plea raised by the defendant No. 3/applicant in this application, it is necessary to take note of the case of the plaintiffs set out in the plaint, inter alia, qua defendant No. 3.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that late Ms. Kanta Mehra was the owner of two properties i.e. property No. C-4/8, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, (described in the plaint as ‘property No. 1’) and Plot No. 559, Block A, Palam Vihar, Village Chauma, Gurgaon, Haryana (described in the plaint as, ‘property No. 2’). Ms. Kanta Mehra was a self-made and independent lady actively involved in business pursuits and led a socially active life. She was a partner in M/s Aspiration International with one Mr. Padam Kapoor. Late Ms. Kanta Mehra was a spinster and expired on 13.12.2010 without leaving any class I heirs. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are claimed to be the class II heirs of late Ms. Kanta Mehra.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that after the demise of her sister Mrs. Raj Kapoor on 29.10.2002, late Ms. Kanta Mehra generally resided with the family of her deceased sister-which is referred to in the plaint as the ‘Somnath Family’. The plaintiffs claim that late Ms. Kanta Mehra owned ground floor of property No. E-61, South Extension Part I, New Delhi. It is claimed that Ms. Kanta Mehra had assured her brother late Mr. A.N.Mehra that she would eventually transfer her rights in the said property No. E-61, South Extension Part I, New Delhi in favour of her brother late Mr. A.N. Mehra, or his family.

4. The plaintiffs claim that Somnath Family ill-treated Ms. Kanta Mehra On 21.07.2007, her brother Mr. A.N. Mehra expired leaving Ms. Kanta Mehra shattered and unsecured. Somnath Family intensified her harassment and exhibited greed to control her movable and immovable property and assets. Her properties were the sole cause for infliction of miseries on her, taking advantage of her loneliness. The plaintiffs state that Somnath Family took undue advantage of her circumstances and robbed late Ms. Kanta Mehra of all her happiness, wealth, liberty and social circle. The plaintiffs state that late Ms. Kanta Mehra voluntarily executed a Gift Deed dated 16.02.2009, gifting one of her properties i.e. E-61, South Extension Part I, New Delhi, to plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs stated that late Ms. Kanta Mehra did not reflect or express her desire, intention or agreement to gift, or give away, or bequeath any of her properties to Somnath Family. The plaintiffs claim that the gift of Ground Floor of E-61, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi infuriated Somnath Family, who ill-treated Ms. Kanta Mehra. This proved detrimental to her health, comfort and peace. The plaintiffs were prevented from meeting or communicating with her. In April, 2010, late Ms. Kanta Mehra fell sick and was hospitalized. Even in her ailment, Somnath Family prevented the plaintiffs from meeting her, and only Mr. Padam Kapoor and/or his office representative were permitted to meet her. Upon her discharge from hospital, she was largely curtailed on the pretext of her health. She was restrictively permitted to visit her office with her driver and attendant.

5. The plaintiffs state that late Ms. Kanta Mehra confided with Mr. Padam Kapoor about her miseries and atrocities inflicted upon her by Somnath Family, and how gradually they controlled her independence to deprive her of all her wealth, jewellery, movable assets – including bank assets and vital documents. It is alleged that she used to lament the betrayal she suffered at the hands of Somnath Family, and her compulsion to stay with them. The plaintiffs allege that late Ms. Kanta Mehra remained under constant apprehension of misappropriation of her assets/wealth at the hands of Somnath Family.

6. The plaintiffs claim that aroun