$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 711/2023 DR ARUN GUPTA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. N. Prabhakar and Mr. Uday Sharma, Advocates.

versus KUSUM GUPTA AND ANR .....Defendants Through: Mr. Rohit Sadana, Advocate for D-1 & D-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 04.02.2026 I.A. 5828/2024

1. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking amendment of the Plaint.

2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for declaration, partition and prohibitory injunction with the following prayers:

“a. decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to l/3^rd share in (i) house number 59, Ambika Vihar, New Delhi-110087 and (ii) the immovable property measuring 3 Kanals and 06 Marlas in Khewat number 405 and Khatuni number 651 falling within the municipal limits of district Kaithal, Haryana (iii) movable assets including the corpus lying in the plaintiffs father's bank accounts, shares and other valuable securities.

b. the consequential relief of segregation of the plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the immovable assets by way of a preliminary and final decree of partition and possession and also the partition and segregation of the plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the movable assets of his late father;

c. a decree of perpetual and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest in the estate of late Shri Daya Kishan Gupta;

d. any other order or decree warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts of the case, as discernible from the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff is the son of Late Shri Daya Kishan Gupta, who expired on 13.04.2021. It is stated that after the demise of the Plaintiff's mother Mrs. Kaushalya in the year 1980, the Plaintiff's father solemnized a second marriage with the widowed sister of his brother's wife i.e. the Defendant No.1 herein. It is stated that the Defendant No.1 had two children from her previous marriage i.e. a son named Vinay and a daughter named Vandana. It is stated that while Vinay, the son of the Defendant No.1 from her first marriage resides at 59 Ambika Vihar, New Delhi along with his family and Vandana (now Vandana Kapoor) has been residing at her matrimonial home in Mumbai. It is stated that son named Anuj i.e. Defendant No.2 herein, was born out of the wedlock of the Plaintiff's father and the Defendant No.1 somewhere in the year 1984.

4. It is further stated that the Late father of the Plaintiff died intestate 13.04.2021 leaving behind the immovable and movable assets. It is stated that after the demise of father, the Defendants started behaving in an indifferent and hostile manner towards the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Plaintiffs apprehends that the Defendants intend to deprive the Plaintiff from his legally protected share in the immovable assets of Late Shri Daya Kishan Gupta and illegally apportion the movable assets among themselves. It is stated that the right to sue the Defendants accrued in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants immediately after the death of the Plaintiff’s father on 13.04.2021 when the Plaintiff became entitled to claim 1/3rd share in the self acquired property of his father Late Shri Daya Kishan Gupta. It is stated that the cause of action further arose when the plaintiff visited 59 Ambika Vihar New Delhi and discovered, on the night of 28.10.2022 that the Defendants were contemplating selling, disposing, alienating, transferring and creating third party rights on the immovable properties left by his late father. It is stated that the cause of action further arose when the Plaintiff got a legal notice dated 11.09.2023, asking the Defendants to effect an amicable settlement of the assets, served on the Defendants and they chose not to respond to the same and, therefore, the present Suit has been filed with the abovementioned prayers.

5. Summons was issued in the Suit on 06.11.2023.

6. By way of the present applicatio