The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to pass judgment if the pleading is found to be manifestly vexatious and meritless, not disclosing a right to sue or defend and implausible.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - This suit for partition of property bearing No.26, admeasuring 3595 sq. mts., Friends Colony (West), New Delhi came up before the undersigned on 7th August, 2019, for hearing of some pending applications and for framing of issues. Having heard the counsels on the controversy for the purposes of adjudicating the applications, it was felt that the question of framing of issues if any qua the pleas of the defendants of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and oral family settlement will have to be first adjudicated and if it was found that no issue arises on the said aspect, in accordance with the admitted position as to title through documents, there should be no impediment to a decree for partition being passed immediately. It was however further felt that the counsels should have an opportunity to address the Court on the said aspect. Accordingly, the framing of issues was deferred to 20th November, 2019 and on which date the counsels were heard and order on framing of issues deferred.

2. The suit has had a chequered history, as also evident from the fact that inspite of having been pending for over ten years, issues even have not been framed as yet.

3. The suit was originally instituted by Niti Jain (Niti) against (i) Ram Kali Jain (Ram Kali), (ii) Shruti Jain (Shruti), (iii) Pramod Kumar Jain (Pramod), (iv) Sunil Jain (Sunil), (v) Ramesh Kumar Jain (Ramesh) and (vi) Raj Kumar Jain (Raj Kumar). It was the case of Niti, that (a) Niti, (b) Ram Kali and Shruti together, (c) Pramod and (d) Sunil had 1/4th share each in the property and Ramesh and Raj Kumar were impleaded, being tenants in the property. Pramod and Sunil, in their written statements, supported the claim of Niti to the extent of the share of different parties in the property. However Ram Kali, Shruti, Ramesh and Raj Kumar controverted the claim of Niti with respect to the shares in the property also.

4. Vide order dated 9th December, 2013, Pramod and Sunil, whose stand qua the shares in the property was the same as Niti, were transposed as plaintiffs in the suit along with Niti. Vide order dated 9th December, 2015, the suit, on enhancement of minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, was transferred to the District Court. However finding the valuation of the suit to be defective and the suit as per valuation pleaded by Niti also being within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, vide order dated 20th August, 2016 of the District Judge, the plaintiffs were directed to amend the plaint qua valuation and the suit sent back to this Court. Vide subsequent order dated 10th April, 2019, on the plea of Pramod and Sunil that Niti was not co-operating in filing of amended plaint with correct valuation as directed by the District Judge and that Niti was in collusion with the other defendants, Niti was transposed from plaintiff no.1 to the defendant no.5 in the suit. Thus the position today is, that Pramod and Sunil are plaintiffs and Ram Kali, Shruti, Ramesh, Raj Kumar and Niti are defendants no.1 to 5 in the suit. However, the parties in this order/judgment will be referred to by their name as aforesaid instead of their nomenclature.

5. It is not in dispute that (i) title to the property was acquired vide sale deed dated 14th November, 1978 in the names of Rakesh Kumar Jain (Rakesh), Pramod, Sunil and Sushil Kumar Jain (Sushil); (ii) the said Rakesh, Pramod, Sunil and Sushil were / are sons of J.R. Jain, R.N. Jain, N.L. Jain and S.R. Jain respectively; (iii) the said J.R. Jain, R.N. Jain, N.L. Jain and S.R. Jain were sons of Uddham Singh Jain; (iv) Rakesh gifted his 25% share in the property to his wife Niti; (v) Sushil, son of S.R. Jain, gifted his 25% share in the property to Ram Kali, wife of J.R. Jain and mother of Rakesh; (vi) Ram Kali, out of her 25% share in the property, gifted 12.5% share to Shruti; and, (vii) in this way, (a) Niti, (b) Pramod, (c) Sunil and (d) Ram Kali and Shruti together were / are the owners of 25% share each in t