* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2025 + CS(OS) 72/2022 & I.As. 2105/2022, I.A. 40283/2024 SMT. VANDANA DIXIT & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Atul Bandu, Advocate (Through VC) with plaintiff in person versus SHRI KUMAR SAMBHAV MISHRA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Ms. Saniya Zehra, Mr. Yuvraj Jaiswal, Advocates for D-1 to 3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA % J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

I.A. 40283/2024 (Application under Order VII Rules 7 and 11 CPC for rejection of plaint)

1. The present application has been filed by the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Order VII Rules 7 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of inconsistent pleas and abuse of process of law.

Brief Facts

2. The underlying suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking partition and permanent injunction qua the estate of Late Smt. Kanti Devi, more specifically, immovable property bearing Municipal No. 8642, Ward No.

Signature Not Verified XVI, Gali Gopal Wali, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, admeasuring 178 Sq. Yds. (earlier known as Plot No.115/5 Block No. 67B Bagh Raoji-III, Delhi) (‘suit property’ or ‘Gali Gopal Wali property’).

3. It is stated in the plaint that the suit property belonged to Late Smt. Kanti Devi (i.e., mother of the parties), who died intestate on 23.04.2021 leaving behind five (5) children. It is stated that thus the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 claim 1/5^th undivided share each in the suit property along with three (3) Defendants, who are brothers of the Plaintiffs. It is stated that the Plaintiffs also claims to be in the joint physical possession of the suit property.

3.1. It is stated in the captioned application that, in the paragraph ‘12’ of the plaint, Plaintiff No.1 has briefly mentioned that about another suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession i.e., CS No. 1504/2021 (‘said suit’) pending between the parties, but she has deliberately not disclosed her pleadings (i.e., written statement) in the said suit; which negates/contradicts the averment(s) made in the present plaint.

3.2. It is stated in the captioned application that, Defendant No.3 filed a suit i.e., CS No. 1504/2021 against the Plaintiff No.1 seeking relief of mandatory injunction and for recovery of means profits qua the property bearing Flat No. 251, Upper Ground Floor, Nagin Lake Apartment, Paschim Vihar Delhi (‘Paschim Vihar property’). It is stated that it is the case of Defendant No.3, in the said suit that he is the owner of the Paschim Vihar property vide a sale deed dated 16.03.2011, and that he had purchased the Paschim Vihar property for a sale consideration of Rs. 47,50,000/-.

3.3. It is stated in the captioned application that the Defendant No.3 had permitted the Plaintiff No.1 and her family to live in the Paschim Vihar Signature Not Verified property on temporary basis considering her financial difficulties only because of brotherly love and affection.

3.4. It is stated in the captioned application that in the written statement filed by the Plaintiff No.1 in the said suit (before District Court), she has claimed that the Paschim Vihar property was given to her along with Plaintiff No.2 by Late Smt. Kanti Devi (i.e., mother of the parties) in lieu of her as well as Plaintiff No.2’s share in the suit property (i.e., Gali Gopal Wali property), which is subject matter of the present suit.

3.5. It is stated in the captioned application that further the Defendant No.3 had filed an application in the said suit (before District Court) under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the ground that it has been admitted by the Plaintiff No.1 that the sale deed qua the Paschim Vihar property is in the name of Defendant No.3. It is stated that however, in reply to the said application the Plaintiff No.1 reiterated that the Paschim Vihar property was given to her along with Plaintiff No.2