JUDGMENT

I.A. 8348/2015 (application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC), I.A. 16548/2015 (application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC), I.A. 3310/2016 (application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC) and I.A. 6799/2016 (application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC) in CS (OS) 3277/2014

1. This judgment will dispose of four applications for rejection of the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter, "CPC"], being I.A. 8348/2015 filed by defendant No. 5(b), I.A. 16548/2015 filed by defendant No. 5(e), I.A. 3310/2016 filed by defendant No. 2, and I.A. 6799/2016 filed by defendant No. 5(a).

2. The applicants seek rejection of the plaint, principally on the ground that the suit has been instituted mala fide, in abuse of the process of Court, that it is barred by estoppel (the plaintiff No.1 having filed an earlier suit on inconsistent and irreconcilable pleadings), and that the suit is bad for want of adequate Court fees.

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. There are two plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of plaintiff No.1. They are resident in the United States of America. Plaintiff No.1-Mr. Sean Dushyant Manchanda [hereinafter, "SDM"], is the son of late Mr. A.D. Manchanda [hereinafter, "ADM"] and late Ms. Padmini Manchanda. His parents were divorced in 1975 when he was approximately eleven years of age. ADM thereafter married Ms. Rabia Manchanda [hereinafter, "RM"], who is arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit. ADM's sister, Mrs. Devika Singh [hereinafter, "DS"], has been impleaded as defendant No.2.

4. The suit concerns a property [3/10, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi-110021] which originally belonged to SDM's paternal grandfather, late Justice S.C. Manchanda [hereinafter, "SCM"] and his wife late Mrs. Usha Manchanda [hereinafter, "UM"] - the parents of ADM and DS. SCM and UM had two other daughters, Ms. Bina Holley and Ms. Monika Ghosh, who are not parties to the suit. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit, M/s Saluja Construction Company Limited and Mr. Vinod Saluja, are a construction company and its director respectively [hereinafter, "Saluja", collectively], who were involved in reconstruction of a building on the aforesaid property. Five defendants, who have been arrayed as defendant Nos. 5(a) to 5(e), are subsequent purchasers of various portions of the aforesaid property upon its reconstruction. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were proceeded ex parte, vide order of the learned Joint Registrar dated 16.12.2016.

5. The plaint, as amended vide order dated 02.05.2017, proceeds on the following basis:

a. SCM and UM migrated to Delhi from Lahore during the partition of 1947, leaving behind properties owned by a Hindu Undivided Family [hereinafter, "HUF"] of SCM. They were allotted the aforesaid property in lieu of properties left behind in Lahore.

b. SCM and UM built two houses on the plot - on the front half of 600 sq. yds., a house was constructed from funds of the HUF (which then comprised of SCM, ADM and SDM), and on the rear half of 600 sq. yds., a house was constructed from UM's personal funds. The present suit concerns the 50% share of the HUF in the property [3/10, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi-110021]. This share is henceforth described as "the suit property".

c. Upon UM's death in 1981, the rear house and her undivided 50% share in the land were bequeathed to DS and her children.

d. SDM claims to have acquired a right in the suit property at birth, being a coparcener in SCM's HUF.

e. A partial partition of SCM's HUF took place in 1977, in which the suit property fell to the share of the HUF of which ADM was karta and SDM was its only other coparcener.

f. Ms. Bina Holley and Ms. Monika Ghosh relinquished their respective shares, if any, in the suit property by registered relinquishment deeds executed in the years 1988 and 1993 respectively. SDM asserts that SCM also relinquished his share during his lifetime.

g. SCM died on 14.11.1999, leaving behind a will dated 22.04.1991 which