NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001501

Page 1 of 27

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 21^st February, 2023

Pronounced on: 1^st March, 2023

+

CS(OS) 650/2021 & I.A. 16025/2021 & I.A. 7658/2022

AKSHAT MITTAL & ORS.

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Praveen Mahajan and Mr.

Kawirangbou Charenamei, Advocates

versus

MRS RENU MITTAL & ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

Dr. Amit George, Mr. Siddhartha

Jain, Mr. Amol Acharya and Mr.

Arkaneil Bhaumik, Advocates for D-

1 and 2 Mr. Abhinav Tathagat,

Advocates for D-3

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

I.A. 2094/2022 (Under Order VII R 11 of CPC)

1.

The instant application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) read with Section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 seeking

rejection of the plaint.

2.

In the captioned suit, the plaintiffs are seeking a decree of partition

and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing no. 171, Chitra

Vihar, Delhi –110092 (hereinafter “suit property”).

3.

The instant application is filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 under

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that

Digitally Signed

By:DAMINI YADAV

Signing Date:01.03.2023

18:14:47

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001501

Page 2 of 27

the plaint does not disclose the cause of action for grant of permanent

injunction and a decree for partition. In the application, it is averred that

neither there are any relevant and material contentions in the suit, nor have

the plaintiffs filed any document on record to support their allegations and

premise on which the present suit is based. It is also contended that the

plaintiffs have no locus to seek partition of the said property, which is a self-

acquired property of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal, since none of the

plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. Therefore, the

plaintiffs cannot raise any claim towards the said suit property. It is further

averred in the application that the said suit property was not a Hindu

Undivided Family (hereinafter “HUF”) property but the individual property

of the late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. Accordingly, it is prayed that the suit

seeking the relief of partition and permanent injunction amongst other

reliefs may be dismissed.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 1/applicant

submitted that it is an admitted fact that late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal is the

registered owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs have themselves filed

the Agreement to Sell dated 9^th October, 1997 and Conveyance Deed dated

27^th March, 2001, executed in favour of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal, with

the plaint. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs have made vague averments

about the existence of a purported HUF and the suit property being part of

an alleged common pool of the HUF. It is submitted that there are no

averments or document which fulfil even the bare modicum of the minimum

prerequisites to plead an actionable case in relation to the existence of the

alleged HUF. The plaint is completely silent about the specific details

and/or particulars of the sources of funds for the purchase of the property.

Digitally Signed

By:DAMINI YADAV

Signing Date:01.03.2023

18:14:47

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/001501

Page 3 of 27

5.

Learned counsel for the defendant no. 1/applicant submitted that the

plaintiffs have failed to elaborate the details of the HUF and the property

thereof, for which the plaintiffs’ claim themselves as coparceners and are

seeking partition. The plaintiffs admittedly are not the legal heirs of late Sh.

Pradeep Kumar Mittal and therefore, cannot seek partition of the property

which is registered in the name of late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Mittal. In fact,