The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs must establish the existence of a cause of action and entitlement to seek the reliefs as sought in the plaint. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

I.A. 2094/2022 (Under Order VII R 11 of CPC)

1. The instant application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. In the captioned suit, the plaintiffs are seeking a decree of partition and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing no. 171, Chitra Vihar, Delhi – 110092 (hereinafter “suit property”).

3. The instant application is filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action for grant of permanent injunction and a decree for partition. In the application, it is averred that neither there are any relevant and material contentions in the suit, nor have the plaintiffs filed any document on record to support their allegations and premise on which the present suit is based. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have no locus to seek partition of the said property, which is a self-acquired property of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal, since none of the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot raise any claim towards the said suit property. It is further averred in the application that the said suit property was not a Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter “HUF”) property but the individual property of the late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. Accordingly, it is prayed that the suit seeking the relief of partition and permanent injunction amongst other reliefs may be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 1/applicant submitted that it is an admitted fact that late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal is the registered owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs have themselves filed the Agreement to Sell dated 9th October, 1997 and Conveyance Deed dated 27th March, 2001, executed in favour of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal, with the plaint. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs have made vague averments about the existence of a purported HUF and the suit property being part of an alleged common pool of the HUF. It is submitted that there are no averments or document which fulfil even the bare modicum of the minimum prerequisites to plead an actionable case in relation to the existence of the alleged HUF. The plaint is completely silent about the specific details and/or particulars of the sources of funds for the purchase of the property.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant no. 1/applicant submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to elaborate the details of the HUF and the property thereof, for which the plaintiffs’ claim themselves as coparceners and are seeking partition. The plaintiffs admittedly are not the legal heirs of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal and therefore, cannot seek partition of the property which is registered in the name of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. In fact, the defendant no. 1, who is the only surviving legal heir of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal is now the absolute owner of suit property. The suit property stands mutated in the name of defendant no. 1 vide Mutation Letter dated 26th August, 2021 issued by East Delhi Municipal Corporation.

6. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to show that the plaintiffs are coparceners to the estate of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. The plaintiffs herein are children and wife of late Sh. Praveen Kumar Mittal and were permitted to live in suit property. The plaintiffs have already inherited the movable and immovable assets of late Sh. Praveen Kumar Mittal, after his demise and thus, cannot claim any right in the assets of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. It is vehemently submitted that the plaintiffs are happy with exclusive enjoyment of all the assets left behind by late Sh. Praveen Kumar Mittal, whereas at the same time stating that the assets of late Sh. P