Mr. Yatendra Sharma, Mr. Ankit Shah and Mr. Tarun Arora, Advs..) v. KAMAL KISHORE NANDWANI S/O LATE SH. HARICHAND NANDWANI R/O H.N

plaintiff. The pedigree chart below explains the description and lineage of parties: - SH. RIJHU RAM NANDWANI SH. BANSI LAL NANDWANI SH. HARICHAND NANDWANI (MARRIED TO KAMLESH NANDWANI) SH. KHAN /KHEM CHAND NANDWAN I SMT. VISHAN DEVI SMT PRITI ARYA SH. KAMAL KISHORE NANDWANI (DEF. NO.1) SMT SUNITA SACHDEVA (DEF. NO.2) DIVANYASHU NANDWANI (PLAINTIFF ) ANUSHKA NANDWANI (DEF. NO.3 )

4. As per the plaint, Late Sh. Rijhu Ram Nandwani had purchased Property (ii) on 12.05.1960. Upon his demise on 26.06.1983, it is stated that a Relinquishment Deed dated 04.06.1984 was executed by his younger son and daughter, namely, Sh. Khem Chand Nandwani and Smt. Vishan Devi, in favour of their elder brothers, Sh. Hari Chand Nandwani and Sh. Bansi Lal Nandwani. It is further averred that thereafter, on

02.09.1986, a Partition Deed was executed between Sh. Hari Chand and Sh. Bansi Lal partitioning Property (ii) among themselves.

5. It is further stated that on 01.12.1995, Smt. Priti Arya was married to defendant no. 1, and the plaintiff was born out of this wedlock on Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:23.05.2025 13:27:50 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

18.12.1996. Subsequently, on 18.06.1998, Property (i) was purchased jointly by the paternal grandparents of the plaintiff, Late Sh. Hari Chand Nandwani and Smt. Kamlesh Nandwani, through a registered sale deed. It is further pleaded that defendant no. 3, the younger sister of the plaintiff, was born on 20.10.2005. Thereafter, on or around 01.01.2008, the plaintiff, along with his parents and minor sister, shifted to Property (i), which has continued to be the family home since then.

6. It is also alleged that on 28.01.2021, defendant no. 1 surreptitiously shifted his ailing father, Late Sh. Hari Chand Nandwani, to the residence of his aunt at Property (iii) without informing the plaintiff or his mother. It is further alleged that on 08.02.2021, a local property dealer named Manoj came to Property (i) along with certain prospective buyers and allegedly threatened the plaintiff and pressurised him to vacate the said premises. As a result of the said threat, on

10.02.2021, Smt. Priti Arya instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Court of Civil Judge, Rohini Courts. It is further pleaded that on 18.02.2021, defendant no. 1 executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of one Smt. Sunita Sachdeva with respect to Property (i). In view of the submissions of the plaintiff therein and the urgency of the matter, the Court was pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction on

24.02.2021 restraining the defendants from dispossessing Smt. Priti Arya without due process of law.

7. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition, permanent injunction and declaration. Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:23.05.2025 13:27:50 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Submissions

8. Mr. Ankur Mahindro, learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 at the outset, submitted that the entire suit is premised on the incorrect assumption that the suit properties are ancestral or a part of the Hindu Undivided family (hereinafter referred to as HUF). Learned counsel also contended that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any of the suit properties are ancestral in nature. It is submitted that, as per the averments in the plaint itself, there is no material on record to suggest that the properties constituted a joint family or coparcenary property, or that any HUF ever existed. In the absence of any documentary evidence or material particulars to that effect, the claim of the plaintiff to a share in the suit properties is wholly untenable.

9. It is further submitted that Property (i) was admittedly purchased by the parents of defendant nos. 1 and 2 via a registered Sale Deed dated

18.06.1998. It is also submitted that the plaintiff himself acknowledges in paragraph no. 8 of the plaint that Property (i) was the self-acquired property of the said parents. Accordingly, upon their demise, the said property devolved solely upon defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter the Act of 1956). Therefore, according to Mr. Mahindro, since defendant No. 1 is alive, it is impermissible for the plaintiff to assert any right, title, or interest during his lifetime.

10. With regard to Property (ii), learned counsel submitted that the Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:23.05.2025 13:27:50 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV said property was originally acquired by Sh. Rijhu Ram Nandwani. After his death, the plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that the property devolved upon his legal heirs, i.e, Sh. Hari Chand Nandwani, Sh. Bansi Lal, Sh. Khan Chand, and Smt. Vishan Devi. It is also submitted that it is an admitted position in the plaint that Sh. Khan Chand and Smt. Vishan Devi executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of Sh. Hari Chand Nandwani and Sh. Bansi Lal. Mr. Mahindro also submits that the plaint also states that the said property was subject to a registered partition Deed dated 02.09.1986. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, in light of the aforementioned admitted facts, Property (ii) ceased to retain any joint family character and became the self-acquired property of the parties to the partition.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that Property (iii) was owned by the maternal grandparents of defendant No.1 and devolved upon Sh. Hari Chand Nandwani and Smt. Saroj Rajpal. It is also submitted that the aforesaid fact has been pleaded in the plaint in Paragraph no. 12. Further, it is also submitted that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how he can claim any right in these properties during the lifetime of the lawful owners.

12. It is also the case of defendants no.1 and 2 that during the lifetime of defendant No. 1, no right, title, or interest can accrue in favour of the plaintiff in any of the aforementioned properties. It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Mahindro that the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor produced any documentary proof indicating the existence of an HUF or coparcenary structure, nor any pleading to the effect of joint family funds being Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:23.05.2025 13:27:50 6 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV utilised for the purchase of the properties in question. Further learned counsel also submits that the averments made in the plaint, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, the present suit is liable to be rejected in limine under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Sunny v. Raj Singh,1 Suraj Munjal v. Chandan Munjal2, Surender Kumar v. Dhani Ram,3 Sagar Gambhir v. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir,4 and Naval Kishore v. Jugal Kishore5, to contend that the plaintiff has no right to continue with the instant suit.

13. Further reliance is also placed on the decisions in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai,6 Vadakkethodukayil Sreedharan Nair v. Koottivattathazhath Soumini,7 Durai v. Dhanamalli S.A., 8 Mohd. Saful v. Haryana Urban Development Authority,9 North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 10 and K. Raju v. Tahsildar Mettur Taluk Office.11

14. Per Contra, Mr. Yatendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contends that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC must be confined to a strict and narrow construction. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamala and 1 (2015) SCC OnLine 13446 2 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6889 3 2016 SCC OnLine Del 333 4 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7305 5 2013 SCC OnLine Del 841 6 (2022) 12 SCC 128 7 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 17676 8 S.A.(MD) No. 871 of 2010 9 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 16312 10 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9224 11 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 16192 Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:23.05.2025 13:27:50 7 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Ors. v. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Ors.,12 wherein it was held that the determination under clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC must be made solely on the basis of the averments in the plaint and no addition or subtraction can be made to the plaint at that stage, nor can any piece of evidence be considered. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India,13 and Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat. 14

15. It is further contended by Mr. Sharma that the plaint, when read holistically, discloses a subsisting cause of action and cannot be rejected merely on the contention that one of the reliefs sought therein may not be granted. Without prejudice to the above, learned counsel avers that even if, for the sake of argument, the Court were to accept the assertion of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that that the relief of partition is not maintainable, the plaint also prays for declaratory and injunctive reliefs which survive independently and must proceed to trial.

16. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, has further placed reliance on the decision in Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy15, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the plaint cannot be rejected in part. The Court held that the rejection of the plaint in respect of only some of the properties or some of the defendants is impermissible under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

17. In view of the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the