* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 21^st May , 2024 Pronounced on:23^rd September, 2024 + CS(OS) 656/2017

1. MR. NIKHIL S. KHANNA S/o Jagdish P. Khanna R/o 7686 High Pine Road, Orlando, Florida 32819 USA.

2. MRS. BRINDA V. KHANNA D/o Jagdish P. Khanna R/o 1092, Whlie Street SE Atlanta, Georgia 30316.

3. MRS. NAMITA KHANNA D/o Jagdish P. Khanna R/o 4991, Keeneland Circle Orlando, Florida 32819.

4. AYESH KHANNA D/o Jagdish P. Khanna R/o 840, Ashland Ave NE Atlanta, Georgia 30307 ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Megha Mukerjee, Mr. Akshay Ringe and Mr. Dharnanjay Gupta, Advocates.

versus MR. JAGDISH PRASAD KHANNA S/o Late Shri Mahadev Prasad Khanna R/o 21-A, Aurangzeb Lane, New Delhi-110011.

.....Defendant Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL CS(OS) 656/2017 Page 1 of 27 Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr.

Mukul Kochhar, Advocates.

Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranav Vyas, Mr. Parinay T. Vasandani, Mr. Tushar Nagar and Mr.

Sukrit Seth, Advocates for proposed D-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

IA No.2532/2019

1. Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the defendant for rejection of the Suit of the plaintiffs for Partition, Declaration, Permanent Injunction and Rendition of Accounts against their father, defendant.

2. The first ground of challenge taken by the defendant is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for seeking partition of the purported Jagdish Parsad Khanna HUF (hereinafter “JPK HUF”) properties.It is explained that the properties enlisted in Schedule A and B of the plaint, have been claimed to be allegedly owned by JPK HUF of which defendant is a Karta and plaintiffs being coparceners. JPK HUF was expressly dissolved w.e.f. 23.02.2006 by a Partition Deed dated 28.11.2006 which was duly stamped and registered. The partition became effective from the said date i.e. 23.02.2006 and the properties/assets and holdings of JPK HUF got duly partitioned.

Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL CS(OS) 656/2017 Page 2 of 27

3. Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 were parties to the Partition Deed and have enjoyed full benefits of the partition so affected, which has not been denied by plaintiff No.1 and 2. Plaintiff Nos. 3 & 4 were fully aware of the Partition Deed and were involved in its drawing, before it was actually executed and registered on 28.11.2006. The plaintiffs are fraudulently now challenging the Partition Deed by suppressing material facts.

4. The plaintiffs have further sought to expand the scope of the JPK HUF properties toinclude the scheduled Propertieswhich are the self- acquiredproperties of the defendant and / or owned in his individual capacity and not as Kartaof the JPK HUF. This is admitted by the Plaintiffs in light ofPartition Deed dated 28.11.2006.

5. Furthermore, under the garb of the present suit the plaintiffs have surreptitiously sought to challenge malafide and countermand the facts of Partition Deed dated 28.11.2006 without any prayer to this effect.

6. Pertinently Partition Deed dated 28.11.2006 has not been challenged till date either by the plaintiffs nor have they prayed for its cancellation or setting aside. The Partition Deed is therefore, valid, subsisting and binding on the parties including plaintiff Nos.1 & 2. The express terms of the Partition Deed make it evident that none of the properties mentioned in Schedule A & B are the HUF properties. Moreover, the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 who have benefited under the Partnership Deed, have been in possession of their respective shares of HUF properties for last almost 12 years; having so elected to accept the Partition Deed they cannot now be allowed to reprobate the Partnership Deed.

7. The second ground of challenge taken by the defendant is that material particulars have not been disclosed by the plaintiffs. It is settled Signature Not V