* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 09.02.2026 Pronounced on: 15.04.2026 + RFA (OS) 30/2025& CM APPL. 29355/2025 NARESH GUPTA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. A. Maitri, Ms.

Radhika Kushaldas & Ms. Parul Sharma, Advs.

versus NIKHIL@NIKHIL KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Kanchan Semwal, Mr.

Piyush Choudhary, Mr. Praveen Kr., Ms.Ruheena & Ms. Ragini, Advs./R1 Mr. Vikas Gautam, Adv./R2&3 Mr. Neeraj Kumar, R4/DDA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. 17101/2023 of CS(OS) 20/2022 titled as Naresh Gupta & Anr. v. Nikhil @ Nikhil Kumar & Ors., whereby, the application filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) was allowed and consequently, the civil suit filed by the appellants was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC.

2. The appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of Late Shri Surendra Prakash Gupta. Earlier, a Civil Suit bearing No. 142/1995 was filed by the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against Late Shri Surendra Prakash Gupta, thereby seeking declaration of co-ownership in respect of the Property No. 144, Deepali Pitampura, Delhi (“suit property”), which stood dismissed on 29.11.1995. The first appeal there against, being RCA No. 5/1996 was dismissed on 04.07.2001, and the second appeal RSA No. 143/2001 stands withdrawn on 28.03.2008.

3. Upon demise of Late Shri Surendra Prakash Gupta on 12.12.2003, the appellants instituted Civil Suit being CS (OS) 20/2022 seeking partition, declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property.

4. The case of the appellants predicates upon a Will dated 17.02.2002, allegedly executed by the deceased, which, according to them, superseded an earlier Will dated 23.05.1997. It is further the case of the appellants that the respondents had played fraud with the appellants as well as with the Delhi Development Authority/respondent No. 4 (“DDA”), in obtaining the Mutation dated 15.04.2021 and Conveyance Deed dated 26.08.2021 on the basis of the alleged Will dated 25.03.1997.

5. In view thereof, the appellants sought a final decree of partition of the suit property declaring that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are owner-in-possession of 1/3^rd share each in the said suit property by virtue of the Will dated 17.02.2002, and for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents as well as for declaring the aforementioned Mutation dated 15.04.2021 and Conveyance Deed dated 26.08.2021 as null and void.

6. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the respondent No. 1 filed his counter claim as well as an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC claiming that the Will dated 17.02.2002 is forged and fabricated and thus, sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action as well as for being barred by limitation.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for both sides, the learned Single Judge, by way of the impugned judgment, allowed the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 11 and dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellants herein. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants preferred the present appeal.

8. The impugned judgment was assailed by the appellants contending that the appellants are in settled, lawful, and continuous possession of their respective portions of the suit property, with appellant Nos. 1 and 2, occupying the first floor and the second floor, respectively, while respondent No. 1 occupying the ground floor. It was argued that Late Sh. Surendra Prakash Gupta, by way of his last valid Will dated 17.02.2002, duly executed in the presence of attesting witnesses in accordance with Section 281 of the India