$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 03.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 15.12.2025

Judgment uploaded on: 15.12.2025

+ FAO(OS) 151/2025, CM APPL. 75934/2025, CM APPL.

75935/2025, CM APPL. 75936/2025 and CM APPL.

75937/2025

ANU (SINCE DECEASED) THRU LR .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Adv.

versus

SURESH VERMA (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS) & ORS. .....Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal, filed by the Appellant, assails the correctness of order dated 11.09.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Single Judge declining the Appellant‟s [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] prayer for a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟] in a partition action. The Appellant/Plaintiff seeks a decree for partition and also for recovery of her alleged share in the rental income from certain properties which she claims form part of the intestate estate of her parents, late Sh. Om

Prakash Verma and late Smt. Chandra Wati.

2. The Appeal raises a narrow question, whether the pleadings disclose such clear and unequivocal admissions as would entitle the

Appellant/Plaintiff to a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, or whether substantial factual disputes persist which necessarily require adjudication upon evidence.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it is necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge.

4. The genealogy relied upon by the Plaintiff, as pleaded in the Plaint, reads as under:

5. The Plaintiff originally instituted the suit seeking partition of seven immovable properties. However, during the course of the proceedings, she confined her claim to three properties situated in Raghubarpura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, bearing Nos. X/2302, X/61–87, and X/453 [hereinafter referred to as „suit properties‟].

6. The Plaintiff asserts that property No. X/61–87 is a built-up plot admeasuring 250 sq. yards, whereas the Defendants dispute this and contend that the total area is 165 sq. yards.

7. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants occupy a residential portion of property No. X/2302, and that the remaining portions of the suit properties generate an aggregate rental income of approximately Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month, in which she claims a 1/6th share. The Defendants dispute the quantum of rent.

8. A further controversy concerns succession to the estate of late Sh. Om Prakash Verma and late Smt. Chandra Wati. The Plaintiff asserts herself to be one of their six heirs. The family, however, comprises eight children, and the parties are at issue regarding the status of late Sh. Dinesh Verma. According to the Plaintiff, Dinesh Verma died childless in 1980 and his widow, Smt. Vinod Verma, subsequently remarried Sh. Suresh Verma. The Defendants, on the other hand, assert that Sh. Vikram Verma is the son of late Sh. Dinesh Verma, though he has not been impleaded. This alleged heirship dispute has remained unresolved at the stage of the Impugned Order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

9. On 16.04.2015, the learned Single Judge framed the following issues:

i. Whether the Properties given in the schedule of properties as filed by plaintiff No. 1 along with plaint are liable to be partitioned? If yes.

which all properties and in what share(s) to each of the parties to the suit? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction in terms of prayer (3)? OPP iii. Whether on the basis of oral family settlement and oral partition, the properties namely (i) X/2302, Raghubarpura. Gandhi Nagar, Delhi came to the share of defendant No. 1 & 2 to the exclusion of other parties to the suit? OPD-1 & OPD-2 iv. Whether the properties