* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 18^th February 2025 Pronounced on: 4th April 2025 + I.A. 5371/2024 in CS(OS) 252/2022 TARUN SINGH SAHARAN .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv.

versus MEETA SINGH & ORS.. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Luqman S. Hasan, Mr.

Shubham Awasthi, Mr. Harsh Raj, Ms. Priya Kaur, Advocates for D-

1 & 2.

Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate for D-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

I.A. 5371/2024 (Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC)

1. This application has been filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 & 2 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’) as being devoid of any cause of action.

2. The background facts of the matter are that plaintiff filed a suit for partition of all the properties of late Sh. Gurbachan Singh Saharan (‘deceased’). Plaintiff is the son; defendant no.1 is the widow and defendant no.2 is the daughter of the deceased.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed I.A. 5371/2024 in CS(OS) 252/2022 Page 1 of 23

3. The plaintiff claimed that he was looking after the entire family, including the time when his father was unwell, however, he passed away on 19^th April 2021, leaving behind the above noted legal heirs. During his lifetime, the deceased acquired various immovable and movable properties which he left behind after his demise. The deceased also acquired various movable and immovable assets in the name of a HUF i.e. “Gurbachan Singh HUF” in which deceased, plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 & 2 were members and deceased was the Karta.

4. It is stated by plaintiff that he had undergone a liver transplant to benefit his father, and it was the wish of his father, that since he had saved his life and donated him a liver, he would get 75% share in all movable and immovable assets left by him, either in his name or in the HUF, defendant no.2 would be entitled for 25% share in the properties and defendant no.1 would have life interest in the residence at House No.29, Surya Niketan, Delhi-110092. As per him, it was further agreed, that plaintiff will be under obligation to take care and maintain his mother i.e. defendant no.1. In this regard, on 6^th July 2021, an Oral Family Settlement had been arrived at between plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2, post demise of late Sh. Gurbachan Singh Saharan.

5. Plaintiff claims that defendant no.3 started living with defendant no.2 and started interfering with the affairs of the family. Defendant no.1 started creating distance from plaintiff and in the month of August- September 2021, placed three bodyguards, who had restrained the plaintiff from going to the floor of defendant nos.1 and 2.

6. After plaintiff was threatened by defendant nos.2 and 3, through the said bodyguards, he filed a complaint on 13^th September 2021 before Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed I.A. 5371/2024 in CS(OS) 252/2022 Page 2 of 23 the SHO, PS Anand Vihar. Thereafter, in October 2021, another police complaint was filed by plaintiff, when he claimed assault by the bodyguards of defendants.

7. Discord between plaintiff and defendants increased and FIR No.14/2022, P.S. Anand Vihar under sections 354/354A/354B/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) was registered by the defendants against the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an anticipatory bail application before ASJ Karkardooma Courts and during the hearing, the IO showed the Will dated 20^th May 2013 of the deceased father, on the basis of which, plaintiff has been denied his rights and share in the estate of his late father.

8. On this basis, plaintiff has sought a decree of partition in respect of all the other parties, a decree of declaration for declaring the Will dated 20^th May 2013 as null and void, a declaration in favour of plaintiff declaring his 75% share in the movable and immovable assets as agreed under the Oral Family Settlement dated 6^th July 2021 and a decree of permanent injunction against defendants from alienating the pr