$~O-25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 335/2020, I.A. 10156/2020, I.A. 10157/2020 & I.A.

10070/2021 RAKESH DHAR JAYAL .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar and Mr.

Kushagra Sharma, Advs.

versus SMITA PRASAD KUMAR & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. K. S. Mahadevan, Ms. Swati Bansal and Mr. R. Rangarajan, Advs.

for D-1.

Mr. Abhik Chimni, Ms. Pranjal Abrol, Ms. Moksh Sharma, Mr. Gurupal Singh and Mr. Ayan Dasgupta, Advs. for D-2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025 I.A. 3803/2022 (by D-1 and 4 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC)

1. Heard.

2. The plaintiff in the instant civil suit prays for declaration that under Clause 6(b) of the registered Will dated 06.05.2011, all movable assets identified in Clauses 5(ii) and 5(iii) are to be disbursed by the executor, by first meeting all estate-related liabilities and expenses, then all funeral and obsequial expenses, and thereafter, distributing the remaining assets to the four specified beneficiaries in the stated proportions i.e, 70% to charities chosen by the executor, 7.5% each to Defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and 7.5%

to the executor himself.

3. For the sake of clarity, reliefs prayed in the suit itself are extracted as under:

“a) declare that Clause 6(b) of the registered Will dated 06.05.2011 executed by Late Mr. Vipin Suri requires the executor of such will (the Plaintiff) to disburse all movable assets identified therein and described in Clauses 5(ii) and 5(iii) in the manner prescribed in Clause 6(b), that is: 29 i) first, to meet all expenses of the estate of Late Mr. Vipin Suri, including any dues or liabilities; second, to meet all expenses incurred for funeral and obsequial ceremonies; and ii) iii) last, to the four identified beneficiaries in the specified proportions, i.e.-(1) 70%to charities chosen by the executor (the Plaintiff); (2) 7.5% to Defendant No. 2; (3) 7.5% to Defendant No. 3; (4) 7.5% to Defendant No. 4; and (5) 7.5% to the executor (the Plaintiff);

(b) declare that pursuant to Clause 8 of the registered Will dated 06.05.2011 executed by Late Mr. Vipin Suri, Defendant No. 1 is a residuary legatee only in respect of those immovable or movable properties which are not contemplated by and/or identified therein;

(c) pass a decree for rendition of accounts against Defendant No. 1 directing Defendant No. 1 to render accounts in respect of amounts withdrawn and/or used by her from the estate of Late Mr. Vipin Suri, including from funds held in the joint bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank (Account No. 4611369082);

(d) pass a decree directing Defendant No. 1 to repay all amounts withdrawn and/or utilised by her from the estate of Late Mr. Vipin Suri (including amounts used to maintain and make alterations to the immovable property at K-95, Hauz Khas Enclave, Delhi 110016) along with interest at 10% per annum;

(e) award costs in favour of the Plaintiff; and (f) pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Per contra, by way of this application, defendant Nos.1 and 4 raise various objections. It is submitted that the declaration sought, relating to the interpretation of the Will and the distribution of movable assets, is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

5. Mr. K. S. Mahadevan, learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 4 submits that Section 34 of the Act permits declaratory relief only in respect of a legal character or right in property, not pecuniary apportionments. It is submitted that the plaintiff cannot seek declarations on behalf of other beneficiaries, nor can he assert rights that are not denied by all defendants. It is also contended that the suit is a device to evade court fees payable on probate proceedings and that proper administration of the estate requires probate, not a civil declaration.

6. Further, it is the submission of Mr. Mahadevan that no interpretat