IMPORTANT POINT
Ownership disputes must be resolved through evidence, and the court cannot reject a plaint in part.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

I.A. 6822/2022 (u/O VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by D-1(b) for rejection of Plaint)

1. By way of present application, the applicant/defendant No. 1(b) seeks rejection of the Plaint.

2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiffs have filed the Suit for Partition and Rendition of Accounts claiming 1/6th share in the suit properties which were owned by Late Shri Jeet Ram Sharma, father-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 and grandfather of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, who died on 03.03.2009.

3. It is asserted that initially the Suit was filed in respect of following properties, namely:

(i) Two and half storied house built on Property No. H-242, Vikaspuri, New Delhi,

(ii) Plot of land measuring 1000 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No. 342, Village Pitampura, Delhi,

(iii) House No. 256, Village Pitampura, Delhi built on a plot of land measuring 1000 sq. yards,

(iv) Plot bearing No. 2047-P, Sector 9 and 9A, Bahadurgarh (Haryana) allotted by Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bahadurgarh, Haryana in favour of Late Shri Jeet Ram Sharma.

4. Subsequently, the plaintiffs by way of Amendment Application No. I.A. 12114/2011 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 which was allowed vide Order dated 19.03.2015, included the following properties:

(i) Property bearing No. 1441-F, Rani Bagh, Sant Nagar Road, Shakurbasti, Delhi measuring 150 sq. yards,

(ii) One HIG Flat No. 512, DJA Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Plot No. 1-A, Sector 13, Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi.

5. The plaintiffs moved another Amendment Application No. I.A. 14911/2016 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 which was allowed vide Order dated 12.10.2018 and the following properties were included:

(i) Land measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas forming part of Khasra No. 45/6, situated at Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi also known as Netaji Subhash Vihar,

(ii) Land measuring 1 bigha forming part of Khasra No. 33/25, situated at Tikri Kalan, Delhi,

(iii) Land measuring 1 bigha forming part of Khasra No. 57/24, situated at Mundka Village, Delhi,

(iv) The land measuring 1 bigha forming part of Khasra No. 63/16, situated at Mundka Village, Delhi,

(v) Land measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas forming part of Khasra No. 36/7, situated at Mundka Village, Delhi,

(vi) Land measuring 400 sq. yards bearing House No. 33, Pitampura, delhi.

6. The defendants have submitted that these amendments were allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

7. It is contended in the present application that the defendant No. 1 expired on 04.12.2020 and his wife/defendant No. 1-b herein, took over the responsibilities of the entire family. It was noticed by her that her property as well as the properties of defendant No. 1 were also included in the suit properties. It is asserted that certain properties included in the suit by way of amendments, are exclusively owned and possessed by the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1-b.

8. The factum of ownership of these properties was duly admitted by the plaintiffs in their aforesaid two amendment applications filed in the year 2011 and 2016 respectively.

9. It has been firstly explained that HIG Flat No. 512, DJA Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. Plot No. 1-A, Sector 13, Phase I, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted in the name of defendant No. 1 vide Agreement dated 03.10.2004, to which the plaintiffs cannot seek any claim.

10. Secondly, the land situated at Mundka Village, Delhi had been acquired by the defendant No. 1 from his own funds.

11. Thirdly, the land at Tikri Kalan, Delhi was purchased by Smt. Asha Sharma, defendant No. 1-b on 28.10.2005 from her own funds for Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, these two properties have been wrongly included in the Plaint by the plaintiffs.

12. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Suit is liable to rejected in respect of two properties which are the individual properties of defendant No. 1 and his wife.

13. The plaintiffs in their Reply have opposed the present application by assuring that the case is at the stage of