ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"(I) Set aside the orders dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Ld. ADJ-02, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi in CS No. 975/2016

(II) Reject the plaint

(III) Any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit under present facts and circumstances in the interest of justice."

2. The relevant facts leading to the present petition have been reproduced herein:

i) Late Smt. Sudha Goel W/o Late Sh. Ram Avtar Goel, is the recorded owner of the property bearing No. F-53, Naveen Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter `Suit Property'). She had expired on 26th April 2021.

ii) The petitioner herein is one of the sons of Late Smt. Sudha Goel. The respondents herein are the sons of Mr. Mukul Goyal, and grandchildren of Late Smt. Sudha Goel. Late Smt. Mukta Chandra was the daughter of Late Smt. Sudha Goel. The family chart is mentioned below for reference:

[IMG]

iii) Late Smt. Mukta Chandra allegedly executed an unattested Will dated 20th January 2015, in the favour of the respondents with respect to her share i.e. 1st Floor with terrace right of the said property.

iv) On the basis of the alleged unstamped and unregistered family settlement dated 8th July 2010, and Will dated 20th January 2015, respondents/plaintiffs filed a Suit bearing No. CS- 975/2016, seeking interalia partition of the Suit Property.

v) The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement raising objections on the ground that the said suit is liable to be dismissed because the Suit Property had already been gifted to the petitioner vide registered Gift Deed dated 25th June 2010, by the absolute owner of the Suit Property as per the records, namely Late Smt. Sudha Goel.

vi) The respondents thereafter, filed their amended plaint seeking possession, declaration and injunction. In the amended plaint, the registered gift deed dated 25th June 2010, was challenged by the respondents.

vii) The petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter `CPC'), for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable being barred by law as the Will dated 20th January 2015, allegedly executed by Late Smt. Mukta Chandra, which is the basis of the suit was not duly executed as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter `the Act').

viii) The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC vide order dated 4th August 2021, thereby holding that the application was not maintainable as the law does not permit the partial rejection of a plaint.

ix) The petitioner is hence before this Court seeking revision of the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 4th August 2021, whereby, the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was wrongly dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

4. It is submitted that learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the respondents have no locus standi to file the suit as they have no right over the Suit Property. It is also submitted that the learned Court below wrongly passed the impugned order while ignoring the fact that the Will dated 20th January 2015, is itself an invalid document, and hence, the respondents being strangers to the Suit Property do not have any interest thereto.

5. It is submitted that Late Smt. Mukta Chandra was neither the owner nor was in possession of the Suit Property. Therefore, the respondents have no legal right which can be said to have been accrued in their favour through the alleged Family Settlement dated 8th July 2010, or through any other documents. The said settlement deed is a nullity in the eyes of law since the same is insufficiently stamped and is an unregistered document.

6. It is further submitted that the re