1. CS(OS) No.1728/2011 is instituted against as many as 18 defendants, for i) declaration that the mutation dated 6th May, 1952 done by the defendant no.18 Land & Development Office (L&DO) in favour of late Sh. Krishan Dutta with respect to property No.13, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi is null and void; ii) declaration that the Will dated 7th June, 1976 executed by Late Sh. Krishan Dutta bequeathing the property aforesaid in favour of defendant no.17 Arya Anathalaya @ Arya Orphanage is null and void; iii) declaration that the Probate/Letters of Administration of the Will dated 7th June, 1976 of late Sh. Krishan Dutta granted by the Court of the District Judge, Delhi is null and void as Sh. Krishan Dutta had no right to bequeath the suit property in favour of defendant no.17 Arya Anathalaya @ Arya Orphanage; iv) partition of the property by metes and bounds; and, v) permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.17 Arya Anathalaya @ Arya Orphanage from taking possession of and/or dealing with the said property.

2. Though the suit is pending for the last seven years, but no issues even have been framed as yet.

3. IA No.3400/2013 of the defendant no.17 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and IA No.6958/2017 of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, besides a number of other applications, are for consideration.

4. In accordance with law reiterated in Anita Kumar Gupta Vs. V. Ved Bhushan 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2895, that an application for amendment of plaint even if filed after the filing of the application for rejection of the plaint, has to be decided before the application for rejection of the plaint, the counsels have been heard on the application of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

5. The counsel for legal representatives of defendant no.1 states that the interest of the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 to 16 is common; that the defendants no.1 to 16 are not contesting the suit and are supporting the plaintiff and it is only the defendant no.17 Arya Anathalaya @ Arya Orphanage which is contesting the suit.

6. As such, the counsel for the defendant no.1, duly supported by the counsel for the plaintiff, has been heard in support of the application for amendment of the plaint.

7. It is inter alia the case of the plaintiff in the plaint dated 20th August, 2011, that i) one Narain Dutta was the owner of property No.13, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and lessee of the leasehold land underneath the same; ii) the said Narain Dutt died intestate in the year 1951 leaving his wife Karam Devi, his son Krishan Dutta and three daughters viz. Smt. Vidyawati, Smt. Kaushalya Devi Dhawan and Smt. Sumitra Sahai; iii) the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 to 16 are the heirs of the three daughters aforesaid of Narain Dutta; iv) Krishan Dutta son of Narain Dutta also died issueless in the year 1976 and his wife Rani Dutta died in the year 1993; v) Krishan Dutta left a Will dated 7th June, 1976 bequeathing the property to defendant no.17 Arya Anathalaya @ Arya Orphanage; vi) however since Narain Dutta died prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 but after the coming into force of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, his wife Karam Devi would also have a right of residence in the property and the inheritance by their son Krishan Dutta of the property would be subject to the said right of residence of Karam Devi; vii) on enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, vide Section 14 thereof, the said right of Karam Devi stood converted into an absolute right and thus Karam Devi and Krishan Dutta were the owners in equal share of the property; viii) thus under the Will dated 6th June, 1976 of Krishan Dutta, only his 50% share in the property would stand vested in the defendant no.17 Arya Anathalaya @ Arya Orphanage and the remaining 50% share, on demise of Karam Devi, would be inherited by her three daughters and whose legal heirs the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 to 16