Dr. Anand Duggal and Ms. Inderjot Kaur, Advs v. SHRI SHOBHA RAM VATS ORS on 08 Dec 2025

Judgment

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails correctness of the judgment dated 10.10.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] by the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 [Defendant Nos.1 & 3 before the learned Single Judge] was allowed and the plaint filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] was rejected. Signature Not Verified

Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:08.12.2025 17:21:36 RFA(OS) 71/2025 Page 1 of 12

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall be referred in accordance with their status and rank before the learned Single Judge. FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

4. The genealogy of the family reads as under:

5. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that somewhere in the 1950s, late Sh. Horam, father of the Defendant No.1 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Horam’] and his brother, late Sh. Pirthi Singh [hereinafter referred to as ‘Pirthi’] jointly purchased property admeasuring 530 sq. yds. bearing No.242, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Plot No.242’], which is stated to be mutated in the revenue record in the year 1951.

6. It stands admitted that Horam died intestate on 28.01.1975, leaving behind three sons, namely Shobha Ram Vats (Defendant Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:08.12.2025 17:21:36 RFA(OS) 71/2025 Page 2 of 12 No.1), Om Dutt Vats and Ashok Kumar Vats, and a daughter, Smt. Jagwati. Upon his demise, his undivided half share in the Plot No.242 devolved equally upon his four children. The record further shows that Smt. Jagwati subsequently executed a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 10.06.1998 in favour of her three brothers, thereby vesting the entire half share of Horam exclusively in them. Horam’s wife, Smt. Parsandi Devi had predeceased the said relinquishment and died on

28.01.1988.

7. It is further not in dispute that Pirthi remained unmarried and had executed a Will dated 12.02.1987 bequeathing his half share in the Plot No.242 in favour of his three nephews (sons of Horam), namely Sh. Om Dutt Vats, Sh. Shobha Ram Vats and Sh. Ashok Kumar Vats. Pirthi passed away on 02.04.1988, and his bequest accordingly took effect.

8. As a result of the aforesaid devolutions, the entire Plot No. 242 came to vest jointly in the three brothers. To record and formalise their arrangement, the parties executed a Family Settlement dated

21.08.1998 and thereafter a registered Partition Deed dated

05.12.2003, under which the Plot No.242 was divided into three equal portions, subsequently numbered as 242-A, 242-B and 242-C.

9. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that the three brothers divided the Plot No.242 by metes and bounds and thus, property No.242-C, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’] fell to the share of the Defendant No.1, who constituted a Joint Hindu Family (‘JHF’) coparcenary property. Defendant No.1 was the Karta. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:08.12.2025 17:21:36 RFA(OS) 71/2025 Page 3 of 12

10. The Plaintiff further claims that the old house was demolished and a new house was constructed jointly by the family members on the suit property, comprising a ground, first, second and third floor.

11. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that he had contributed towards the construction of the suit property as well as towards the payment of municipal taxes. It is further his case that the parties have been occupying distinct portions of the premises, with the Plaintiff and Respondent No.5 residing on the second floor, Respondent No.6 residing on the first floor, and the remaining members utilising the ground floor for commercial purposes. According to the Plaintiff, such an arrangement reflects joint possession and enjoyment of the property as a JHF property.

12. The record further indicates that Defendant No.1 executed a Gift Deed dated 13.07.2021 in favour of his daughter, Smt. Kamlesh Sharma (Defendant No.3), thereby transferring the ground and third floors to her. Defendant No.1 is also stated to have executed a Will dated 28.06.2021 in respect of the first and second floors of the suit property.

13. The Plaintiff, claiming to be a coparcener of the alleged JHF property, instituted CS(OS) 97/2023 seeking a declaration challenging the validity of the Will dated 28.06.2021. The Plaintiff has additionally sought partition, permanent and mandatory injunctions, and possession of the suit property.

14. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the aforesaid instruments were procured under undue influence and are void in law on the Signature Not Verified ground that the suit property is JHF property in which Defendant No.1 Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:08.12.2025 17:21:36 RFA(OS) 71/2025 Page 4 of 12 had no exclusive right of disposition. The stand of Defendant Nos.1 and 3, however, is that the suit property is self-acquired and, therefore, Defendant No.1 was fully competent to deal with it in the manner he deemed fit. It is also on record that Defendant No.1 appeared before the learned Single Judge on 23.07.2025 and affirmed that both the Gift Deed and the Will were executed voluntarily, denying any coercion or improper influence.

15. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which was contested by the Plaintiff. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to reject the plaint vide Impugned Judgment, while recording the following reasons: i. That Horam never constituted any JHF. That the Plaintiff, in his statement, did not disclose that he had a ii. 1/7th share in the suit property. iii. That the Plaintiff failed to produce any document to establish that he had contributed towards the reconstruction of the suit property.

16. Learned Single Judge has also relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Others v. Chander Sen1, Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar2 and judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Bhatia v. Ravindra Kumar Bhatia and Others3.