$-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV + CS(OS) 261/2024, I.A. 7162/2024, I.A. 7163/2024, I.A.7164/2024 & I.A. 7166/2024 HARMANPREET KAUR DHIR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OLD, W/O AMANPREET SINGH DHIR, D/O PRITAM SINGH BHATIA, R/O A-82, JUNGPURA B, NEW DELHI- 110014 ALSO AT

17, TARUN ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, DELHI - 110034 .....PLAINTIFF (Through: Mr. Karanjot Singh Mainee, Mr. Sahil Chopra and Ms. Manya Kaushik, Advocates.)

Versus PRITAM SINGH BHATIA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS OLD S/O CHARAN SINGH BHATIA R/O 17, TARUN ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA - 110034 ....DEFENDANT NO.1 RAMINDER PAL SINGH BHATIA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OLD Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed S/O PRITAM SINGH BHATIA R/O 17, TARUN ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA - 110034 ....DEFENDANT NO.2 (Through: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr.

Gagadeep Sharma and Mr. Veerendra Kumar, Advocates.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % Reserved on: 06.02.2025 Pronounced on: 18.03.2025 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

I.A. 32101/2024 (filed on behalf of the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint)

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [„CPC‟] seeking rejection of the plaint which has been filed for a decree of partition of, inter alia, property bearing no. plot no. 17, admeasuring 176.95 sq yds., comprised in the Layout Plan of Dera Ghazi Khan Disst. Refugees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd, now known as Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as „suit property‟) and for rendition of accounts, etc.

Factual matrix in a nutshell

2. The brief facts of the instant case, as per the plaint, are as follows: -

a. Defendant No. 1 entered into a matrimonial alliance with Smt.

Bhupinder Kaur in accordance with the provisions of the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, in the year 1971. From this union, defendant Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed No. 2 was born on 29.08.1972 and the plaintiff was born on

13.12.1985.

b. In 1972, the parents of the plaintiff, along with defendant No. 2, moved into a residential property at Shalimar Apartments, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Shalimar Bagh property) which, according to the plaint, was acquired with financial assistance from both the paternal and maternal grandparents of the plaintiff.

c. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 disposed of the Shalimar Bagh property and acquired Property No. C-107, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Pushpanjali Enclave property).

d. On 31.05.1995, defendant No. 1, acting in his capacity as the Karta of P.S. Bhatia (HUF), entered into an arrangement for the purchase of the suit property which was originally allotted by the DDA to one Prem Prakash, son of Late Sh. Tara Chand for a total consideration of ₹2,50,000/-. As per the plaint, the suit property was purchased using proceeds from the sale of the Pushpanjali Enclave Property, which in turn was acquired from the sale of the Shalimar Bagh property.

e. On 13.11.1997, defendant No. 1, as the Karta of P.S. Bhatia (HUF), executed a conveyance deed upon payment of ₹14,798/- and consequently in terms of the conversion from leasehold to freehold, the revisionary rights of the suit property were transferred in the name of PS Bhatia (HUF).

Submissions by the parties Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed

3. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendants, contends that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is also barred by law and, therefore, liable to be rejected. He submits that the plaintiff‟s claim for partition of the suit property is legally unsustainable, as the plaintiff h