The registration of a Will does not establish its validity; proof is essential, and the question of limitation cannot be determined at the pleading stage if the facts are disputed.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Appeal, under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, is preferred against the Judgment dated 27.02.2025, [Impugned Judgement], passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 361/2016, titled “Mrs. Jyotsna Bhatia v. Mr. Arun Khosla & Ors.”. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed IA No. 14141/2016, application preferred by the Appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [CPC], seeking rejection of the plaint instituted by the Respondent.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane, for the institution of the present Appeal, along with the family tree for the sake of brevity, are as follows:-

3. Late Sh. Bhim Sen Khosla, who is the father and the common ancestor of the parties herein, was the owner of a property bearing House No. B-98, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048, [Suit property]. Late Sh. Bhim Sen Khosla passed away on 19.03.1986, leaving behind the aforenoted Class I heirs. It is the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff therein that her father died intestate and the properties owned by him devolved upon his legal heirs accordingly. Thereafter, the Plaintiff, on 03.06.2015, was apprised about the fact that the subject property had been mutated in favour of Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 (Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 before the ld. Single Judge) through information from the MCD and upon scrutiny of certain documents.

4. It is further alleged by the Respondent that it was revealed to her that a suit, being CS(OS) 804/1995, which was filed by Late Smt. Laj Khosla, wherein a compromise decree was passed. It is stated that the suit was filed without impleading the Respondent and the compromise decree was also not brought to the knowledge of the Respondent by the Appellant. It is stated that upon further inquiry, it was brought to light that the father of the parties - Late Mr. Bhim Sen Khosla, had left a registered Will dated 09.08.1984 bequeathing the entire suit property in equal shares to Appellant Nos. l & 2.

5. The Respondent further asserts that her mother had executed another Will dated 31.07.1991 in favour of Appellant No. 1, purportedly bequeathing her share in the suit property. However, it is contended that on 31.07.1991, the mother did not possess any disposable share in the property. Moreover, in CS(OS) No. 804/1995, she had herself entered into a compromise acknowledging a 25% share in the property, therefore, the execution of the Will dated 31.07.1991 becomes doubtful.

6. In these circumstances, the Respondent instituted the present suit seeking, inter alia, declaration, partition and separate possession of the residential property and agricultural land owned by her late father. During the proceedings, the Appellants filed IA No. 14141/2016 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the said application by way of the Impugned Judgment.

7. It is pertinent to note that the Appellants herein have limited their challenge to the judgment impugned herein to the sole question of whether this suit itself was barred by limitation or not. They have thus not urged any of the other points raised by them in the original application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the corresponding grounds as raised in the present Appeal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the Respondent herein was aware of the registered Will dated 09.08.1984 as also the Will dated 31.07.1991, and given this aspect, the suit as filed in 2016 and as amended on 15.0