Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
MANUJA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
RAHUL SHARMA & ANR. – Respondent
FAO(OS) 87/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Mr. Raghavv Sabharwal, Mr. Ayush Shirvastava
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Awasthi, Mr. Rishi Jaiswal, Mr. Kunal Singh, Mr. Abhishek Shandilya
The court ruled that a claim cannot be dismissed at a preliminary stage without allowing parties to present evidence, emphasizing that the concept of fraud necessitates an intentional deception.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 - Deletion of relief in preliminary stage - Plaintiff alleges brother forged signatures for property transfer and filed suit seeking to declare deeds as void - The trial court dismissed parts of the suit based on preliminary findings of fraud without allowing evidentiary hearing - Court held that preliminary deletion is inappropriate without conclusive determination of merits (Paras 8, 20, 21, 22).
(B) Fraud - Concept and proof - Relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the Court discussed fraud's role in litigation but highlighted that not all false claims constitute fraud under the law, requiring intent to deceive (Paras 21).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff filed suit for partition and declarations against her brother, alleging he fraudulently transferred her inherited property while she was out of the country.
Findings of Court:
It was inappropriate to dismiss part of a plaint without evidence; claims of unclean hands require a factual basis.
Issues: Whether the trial court could dismiss claims at a preliminary stage without evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: Dismissal requires substantial evidence; preliminary conclusions cannot replace a full hearing (Paras 20, 22).
Result: Appeal allowed; lower court's order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the order of deletion of claims from the plaint. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and the context of property inheritance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. arguments about the correctness of preliminary findings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's stance on evidence necessity for claim dismissal. (Para 15 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. defining fraud in legal context and its implications. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. outcome of the appeal and its implications. (Para 23 , 24) |
1. Through the present Appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant herein assails the correctness of an Order dated 27.05.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby certain portion of the property being Serial Nos.1, 2 and 3 of Schedule-A of the Plaint is deleted from the scope of the Suit on the ground that the Appellant has come to the Court with unclean hands and the case put forth by the Appellant is bogus. This finding was arrived at during the preliminary stage of the Suit without granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
2. Herein, the parties shall be referred to by their status in the Suit, i.e., CS(OS) 610/2023.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.
4. The genealogy of the family reads as under:
5. The Plaintiff, Smt. Manuja Sharma, through Special Power of Attorney Smt. Sarita Sharma, filed a Suit for the grant of the following reliefs:
“a. Declare release deed(s) dated 5.5.2022 registered as document no.3643 in Additional Book No.1 Vol. No.10,220 on page 67 to 70, document No.3616 in Additional Book No.1 Vol. No.10,219 on page 72 to 75, document No.3644 in Additional Book No.1, Vol. No.10,220 on page 71 to 74, in the office of SubRegistrar-VIII, District East, Delhi, as void ab initio, non-est and non-binding on the plaintiff.
b. Issue a mandate commanding the Defendant No. 1 to submit to the authority of this Hon’ble Court, Documents of titles of immovable properties described and detailed in Scheduled-A, and other properties of the deceased parents of the parties not known to the plaintiff and amounts received by Defendant No. 1 being Nominee of Late Devki Nandan Sharma from the Bank Accounts Described in Scheduled-B.
then
c. Pass a Decree Partitioning the immovable properties detailed and described in Scheduled-A along with the other properties disclosed by defendant No.1, among the legal heirs of Late Devki Nandan Sharma & Late Santosh Sharma in metes and bounds and distribution of movable assets as described in Schedule B, in equals to the legal heirs of the deceased Devki Nandan Sharma and Santosh Sharma, which is 1/3rd.
d. Local commissioner be appointed to suggest a mode of partition of the suit property with proportionate rights in the land underneath by metes and bounds.
e. After submitting the report of the local commissioner, a final decree for partition be passed delineating and separating the share of the plaintiff in the suit property with proportionate rights in the land underneath.
f. Award damages to the plaintiff on rendition of true accounts by the Defendant No. 1 to this Hon’ble court and determining the amount liable to be paid to the plaintiff, by the defendant No.1.
g. Pass a decree for damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 @ Rs.18,000/- per month or at such other rate as adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court with effect from the date of the filing of the suit till payment with interest @ 18% per annum.
h. Pass a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining defendants, their agents, attorneys, assignees, relatives from transferring the possession of the suit property and/or from creating any third party interest in the suit property.”
6. Along with the Plaint, lists of properties were detailed in Schedule-A and Schedule-B. In substance, it is the case of the Plaintiff that her parents died intestat
