IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6597-2025 DECIDED ON: 29.10.2025 AJAY KUMAR GOYAL .....PETITIONER VERSUS RAVINDER KUMAR GOYAL AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Kashish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–defendant for setting aside the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner–defendant and the respondents–plaintiffs are real brothers, being the sons of late Sh. Parshotam Das Goyal, son of Sh. Banarsi Das Goyal. After the demise of Sh. Parshotam Das Goyal, a dispute arose between the parties with respect to his estate, comprising both movable and immovable properties, bank accounts, fixed deposits, and valuables lying in bank lockers. The plaintiffs–respondents instituted a suit for declaration before the learned trial court to the effect that they, along with the defendant, are entitled to inherit the estate of their deceased father in equal proportion, and further that the defendant, who had received the amounts from various bank accounts of the deceased as a nominee, is bound to distribute the same equally amongst all the legal heirs. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration with respect to immovable properties left behind by the deceased and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or withdrawing the remaining estate including funds from account no. 0050000102036012 maintained with Punjab National Bank, Bank Street (now Hanuman Chowk), Bathinda.

3. Upon notice of the suit, the defendant appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. It was contended in the said application that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable and was barred by the provisions of Sections 34 and 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, since the plaintiffs had an efficacious alternative remedy of seeking a succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the property of the deceased, as during his lifetime, an oral family settlement had taken place wherein all parties had received their respective shares. It was also urged that the plaintiffs had not sought any consequential relief of recovery of money, and therefore the mere declaratory suit was barred by law.

4. The plaintiffs–respondents filed their reply contesting the application, submitting that the rigour of the proviso to Section 34 and Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was not attracted in the facts of the present case. It was asserted that the defendant, having received the amounts from the banks as a nominee, was holding the same in a fiduciary capacity as a trustee for the benefit of all the legal heirs. The plaintiffs further contended that by not distributing the said amount, the defendant had denied their legal character as co-heirs, which gave rise to the cause of action for seeking a declaration of their rights. It was further contended that once the amount had already been withdrawn by the defendant, the remedy of obtaining a succession certificate no longer survived, and the present declaratory suit was the only proper course available for enforcement of their right as legal heirs.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the defendant vide order dated 22.07.2025. The trial Court observed that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is only the averments in the plaint