A cause of action must be assessed holistically, considering all relevant evidence, and cannot be dismissed solely based on preceding legal findings or limitations without a comprehensive examination.

JUDGEMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.

1. The present Appeal, instituted under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [CPC], impugns the Judgement dated 12.03.2024 [Impugned Judgement] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No. 433/2018 titled as “Sonia Jokhani v. Jugal Kishore Jokhani & Anr.”. By the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed I.A. No.14230/2019 filed by the Respondents/ Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and consequently rejected the plaint under clauses (a) and (d) thereof, holding that no cause of action had accrued in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff therein and that the suit was barred by limitation.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Appellant and the Respondents are siblings, and the present appeal emanates from a property dispute concerning premises situated at H-59, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-11001, [Subject property], admeasuring approximately 300 sq. yards, which had been purchased on 03.05.1961 by Late Shri Nandlal Jokhani (father of the parties) in the name of his mother, Late Smt. Lachmi Devi (grandmother of the parties). Shri Nandlal Jokhani passed away intestate on 26.12.1982.

3. On 13.08.1985, Smt. Lachmi Devi executed a registered Will bequeathing the subject property to her daughter-in-law, Late Smt. Kamlesh (mother of the parties). A plain reading of the Will reveals that upon the demise of Smt. Lachmi Devi, all her properties, including the subject property, were to devolve upon Smt. Kamlesh, and thereafter, upon her death, to Defendant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1.

4. Following the demise of Smt. Lachmi Devi on 01.11.1987, Smt. Kamlesh applied for mutation of the property in her own name on 13.11.2002. All legal heirs, including Respondent No. 1, submitted affidavits/ No Objection Certificate, [NOC] expressly granting their no- objection and recognizing Smt. Kamlesh as the absolute owner. According to the Appellant, this unequivocal acknowledgment amounted to a waiver of their rights, and the relevant documents evidencing such waiver continue to remain with the municipal authorities.

5. Smt. Kamlesh died intestate on 29.12.2006, leaving behind three legal heirs:

(i) Appellant – Smt. Sonia Jokhani (daughter),

(ii) Respondent No. 1 – Shri Jugal Kishore Jokhani (son), and

(iii) Respondent No. 2 – Smt. Poonam Madan (daughter).

6. The Appellant asserts that Respondent No. 1, concealing the earlier waiver, fraudulently mutated the property in his exclusive name on 03.06.2008 by misrepresenting himself as the sole owner. On the same day, Respondent No.1 executed a Sale Deed in favour of M/s Nelson Construction & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., [Nelson Construction] for the first floor of the subject property, and subsequently, on 28.07.2008, entered into a Collaboration Agreement with Nelson Construction for the re- development of the entire property, receiving consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- under the agreement.

7. Pursuant to this arrangement, Nelson Construction demolished the existing structure in October 2008. The Appellant, unaware of the collaboration and sale transactions, initially objected to the demolition but was reassured by Respondent No. 1 that the property would be divided in accordance with the law. Relying upon such assurance, she refrained from taking any immediate action.

8. During reconstruction, both the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 temporarily relocated their residences.

9. In 2010, Respondent No. 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 207/2010 before the Civil Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, seeking an injunction against the Appellant, and on 30.08.2011, obtained an ex parte injunction de