IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Shampa Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
Alok Kumar Dey - Respondent
CS(OS) 376 of 2020 &I.A. 11047 of 2020 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC)
Decided On : 23-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks partition and injunction. (Para 2) |
| 2. family background and legal heirship established. (Para 6) |
| 3. defendants claim suppression and invalidity of the will. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court fees and valuation considerations discussed. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. trial required to establish the legitimacy of the will. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. plaint survives motion to reject; requires trial. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. court dismisses applications; suit to proceed. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
I.A. 1210/2021 (of the defendant no.1 u/O-VII R-11 of CPC), I.A. 2081/2021 (of the defendant no.3 u/O-VII R-11 of CPC)
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide applications filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint.
Proceedings in the suit
2. The present suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking reliefs of partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing No. B-127, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019. (hereinafter referred to as `suit property').
3. Summons in the suit were issued on 25th November, 2020. Written statements have been filed on behalf of the defendants no.1, 2, 3 and 4. Replications thereto have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
4. Subsequently, the present applications were filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 3. Notice in I.A. 1210/2021 and I.A. 2081/2021 were issued on 27th January, 2021 and 11th February, 2021 respectively. Replies have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
5. The statement of the plaintiff in respect of the earlier suit being CS(OS)77/2016 filed on behalf of the plaintiff was recorded on oath under the provisions of Order X of the CPC on 18th August, 2022.
Pleadings in the plaint
6. The pleadings in the plaint insofar as are relevant for deciding the present application are set out below:
6.1. The suit property belonged to Late Sh. Moni, who expired on 24th February, 2006, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Kamala Dey and 5 children. The plaintiff and the defendants no.1 and 3 are 3 surviving children of Late Sh. Moni Dey. Sh. Debdas Dey, another son of the Sh. Moni Dey expired on 24th June, 2011 and is survived by his daughter, Debashree Biswas, the defendant no.2 herein. Another daughter of Late Sh. Moni Dey, Smt. Khela Kanwar, expired on 9th September, 2019 and is survived by her son, the defendant no.4 herein.
6.2. After the death of Sh. Moni Dey, the defendant no.1 propounded an unregistered Will dated 11th March, 2004 executed by Sh. Moni Dey. However, it was decided by the parties mutually that the said Will would not have any bearing on the rights of the legal heirs of Sh. Moni Dey and the suit property would devolve upon Smt. Kamala Dey exclusively.
6.3. Sh. Kamala Dey expired intestate on 20th November, 2018. At the time of her death, Smt. Kamala Dey was the absolute owner of the suit property.
6.4. After the death of Smt. Kamala Dey, it was orally agreed between the parties that the legal heirs of Smt. Kamala Dey will use the suit property for residential purposes and make endeavours to partition the suit property by metes and bounds. It was also agreed that none of the legal heirs will deal with the suit property in any other manner. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendants have been residing in the suit property.
7. Accordingly, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking following reliefs:
"(a) pass a Preliminary decree of partition in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants towards one fifth (1/5) share of the property bearing No. No.B-127, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019, admeasuring 196 square yards (164 square meter approx).
(b) pass a decree of partition in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants towards one fifth (1/5) share of the property bearing No. No.B-127, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019, admeasuring 196 square yards (164 square meter approx).
The court upheld the plaintiff's right to proceed with the suit, determining that the plaint discloses a cause of action necessitating a trial, and ruled against the rejection of the plaint under CPC....
The court emphasized the importance of clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions for the exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and highlighted the principle that possession ....
Court's jurisdiction in rejecting a plaint is limited to the averments within it, and cannot be influenced by extrinsic documents or biases regarding legitimacy of claims.
At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court cannot go into the veracity of the pleas taken in the plaint or its truthfulness. The same can only be tested in a trial.
The court emphasized the importance of complying with court fee requirements and directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a specified timeline and impose costs for unwarranted applicatio....
Unregistered agreements do not confer rights in property; a valid title requires a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for partition can be barred by law and limitation if there is already a decree and final decree in place, and the plaintiff fails to en....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear pleadings and necessary averments for the existence of joint Hindu family/HUF properties, and the court's wide discretion....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.