Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
KRITIKA JAIN – Appellant
Versus
RAKESH JAIN – Respondent
CS(OS) 679/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Aparna Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Vineet Jindal, Ms. Urvashi Parkash, Ms. Richa Pandey, Ms. Akshita Thakur
Plaintiff's claim to ancestral property rejected; property devolved solely to defendants under Hindu Succession Act, denying plaintiff a cause of action.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Rejection of plaint - The plaintiff seeks partition of property inherited from her grandfather; the suit property devolved solely on the defendants after intestate deaths in the family. Court held that the plaintiff has no claim over the property due to the provisions in the HSA. (Paras 6, 12, 19)
(B) Cause of action - Definition and requirement - The plaint does not disclose any right to claim over the property, thus failing to sustain a cause of action for partition or declaration. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claims a share in property purchased by her grandfather and argues that the property is ancestral; defendants contend it devolved to them under the HSA.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff lacks legal standing regarding the property as it solely belongs to the defendants who inherited it without the plaintiff's right.
Issues: Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and the rightful claimant of the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs' assertion of rights is baseless without any legitimate claim according to the Hindu Succession Act - property devolves according to class of heirs under the Act, ruling out the plaintiff's claim.
Result: The plaint is rejected.
JUDGMENT
I.A. 46721/2024 (UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT)
1. The instant application is filed by the defendants herein under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action is disclosed therein.
2. The present civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff against her father, Sh. Rakesh Jain arrayed as defendant no. 1 herein, and her paternal aunt, Smt. Neena Jain arrayed as defendant no. 2, seeking partition of the property bearing number C4F/196, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 (‘suit property‟). The case set up in the plaint is that the suit property was purchased by late Sh Pawan Kumar Jain, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, sometime in the years 1972-1973, thereby acquiring absolute rights and title over the same. Late Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain is stated to have passed away intestate, on 26.06.1994, leaving behind his widow, late Smt. Sudarshan Jain and children, Sh. Rakesh Jain and Smt. Neena Jain as his legal heirs. Late Smt. Sudarshan Jain, the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff is also stated to have passed away intestate on 19.01.2023. The family tree of late Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain is produced below, for reference:
3. In the plaint, the plaintiff avers that when she asked to partition the suit property, the defendants kept on avoiding on one pretext or the other, and set about trying to alienate and create third party rights in the suit property in order to deprive her of a share in the same. The plaintiff avers that she has filed the present suit in order to protect her interest in the suit property.
4. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks declaration that she is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property and for partition of the same accordingly. Apart from the aforenoted prayers, the plaintiff also seeks other ancillary reliefs. The prayer clause of the plaint is reproduced below, for reference:
“a. Pass an ad-interim order restraining the defendants from creating any third-party rights in the suit property till the pendency of this present suit;
b. “Pass a decree of declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the undivided ½ share of Defendant No. 1 in the suit property being C4F/196, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi;
c. Pass a decree cancelling the relinquishment deed dated 12.08.2024 as null and void;
d. pass a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property being No. C4F/196, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi; and
e. pass an order appointing a local commissioner to suggest mode of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds; and
f. pass a final decree of partition delineating and separating the 1/4th share each of the Plaintiff in the undivided share of Defendant No. 1 in the suit property bearing No. C4F/196, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, New Delhi; and
g. pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant no. 1 and 2 from in any manner selling, mortgaging, transferring and/ or encumbering the suit property and/ or creating third party rights therein; and/ or
h. award costs of these proceedings in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants; and/ or i. pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
5. The defendants, by way of the present application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, seek rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action for institution of the suit.
6. Mr. Vineet Jindal, learned counsel for the defendants, submits that upon the death of the plaintiff’s grandparents, the suit property devolved solely on the defendants under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, („HSA‟) and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim to have any right over the suit property.
7. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiff has filed the present suit only with a view to pressurise the defendants, and prays that the plain
