$~58

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 17th November, 2025

+ CS(OS) 234/2023 with I.A. 6925/2023, I.A. 26018/2023, I.A. 4080/2024, I.A. 6502/2024, I.A. 37245/2024 & I.A. 38252/2024

ARUN KUMAR .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Plaintiff through VC.

versus

SUBHASH CHAND & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Mr. Mahmood Hasan, Md. Shoaib Mahmood and Ms. Nazia Khan, Advocates for D-1 and D-2.

Mr. Amit Mishra, Advocate for D-6.

D-6 present-in-person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

I.A. 26018/2023 (u/O-VII Rule 11 of the CPC)

1. The present application has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2 seeking rejection of plaint.

2. Notice in this application was accepted by the plaintiff appearing in person on 22nd January 2024.

3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

4. The present suit has been filed inter alia seeking reliefs of declaration and partition of the movable properties including gold articles and vehicles and various immovable properties.

5. The defendants no.1 and 2 are the plaintiff’s father and mother respectively and the defendants no.3 to 5 are his sisters. The plaintiff seeks partition of the aforesaid movable and immovable properties on the ground that the said properties are joint family properties.

6. The ground taken on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2 in the present application is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the reliefs claimed against the defendants inasmuch as there are no pleadings in the plaint with regard to the creation, existence and continuity of a Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter ‘HUF’). Thus, the suit properties cannot be regarded as HUF properties.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing no. X/2195, Mahila Colony, Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110031 belonged to the great grandfather of the plaintiff who had purchased the same in the year 1954.

8. It is stated that the great grandfather of the plaintiff died intestate on 28th October, 1983 and after his death, 50% share of the said ancestral property came to the share of the plaintiff’s grandfather. The grandfather of the plaintiff thus became Karta of the joint Hindu family, including the village properties and also succeeded to the money left by the plaintiff’s great grandfather in the common stock.

9. It is further stated that the grandfather of the plaintiff died intestate on 17th September, 1998 and his grandmother died intestate in 2005. After the death of the plaintiff’s grandfather, the defendant no.1 became the Karta of the HUF and the defendant no.1, along with the defendant no.2, took control of the aforesaid ancestral property.

10. It is stated that the defendant no.1 sold his share in the ancestral property i.e. X/2195, Raghubar Pura No.1, Gali No.1, Mahila Colony, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 to the defendants no.6 and 7 on 4th December, 2001.

11. It is averred that the defendant no.1 subsequently purchased the following immovable properties in his name and in the name of the defendants no.2, 4 and 5 from the money which had been left behind by plaintiff’s grandfather and from the sale proceeds of the aforesaid ancestral property:

(i) B-108, Main Road, Rani Garden, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031

(ii) 38, Gali No.2, Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092

(iii) 41A, Gali No.2, Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092

(iv) B-31, Street No.6, Rajgarh Colony, near Mother Dairy, Delhi-110031

(v) 8A/62, Ground Floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031

(vi) 13/23, Braham Puri, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi

(vii) C-11, Ground Floor and First Floor, Rani Garden, Geeta Colony, Shastri Nagar, Delhi

(viii) 8-A, Upper Ground Floor and First Floor, Rani Garden, Shastri Nagar, Delhi

(ix) A-1/13, Rani Garden, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110031

12. I have heard counsel for the parties.

13. To sum up, it is the case of the plaintiff that a