Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In an appeal arose from a Single Judge’s order dated 10-09-2025, whereby an application filed by appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint in partition suit was dismissed, a Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., affirmed the impugned order. And held that such partition suit cannot be rejected at threshold.
The Court held that where the plaint pleads acquisition of property from joint family funds with sufficient foundational facts, then disputed questions regarding title, limitation, and effect of registered documents cannot be decided at the threshold and must await trial.
The instant matter deals with dispute pertaining to two immovable properties, (i) Flat No. 115-D, Bathlas Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., I.P. Extension, Delhi (“Bathla Property”); and (ii) Plot No. 91, Maulsari Road, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-III, Gurugram (“Gurugram Property”).
The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition, asserting that both properties were acquired from joint family funds, including proceeds derived from the sale of properties left behind by the deceased father. It was pleaded that the properties were intended for the benefit and welfare of the family as a whole. According to the plaintiff, though the Bathla Property stood in the name of Vinay Jauhari, he was barely 21 years of age at the time of booking, was pursuing his education, and had no independent source of income, and the property was, in fact, used by the deceased mother for residence.
With respect to the Gurugram Property, it was purchased in the joint names of the deceased mother and Vinay. After Vinay’s death on 21-02-2018, disputes arose regarding partition. The plaintiff alleged that Appellants (Defendant 1 and 2) relied upon a Gift Deed dated 16-08-2005, purportedly executed by the deceased mother in favour of Vinay, which was never disclosed during her lifetime and came to the plaintiff’s knowledge only during proceedings initiated in 2018.
The appellant disputed the very foundation of the suit and contended that the claim of acquisition from “joint family funds” was wholly misconceived and contrary to the admitted documentary record. They relied upon a Will dated 06-04-1976 executed by the deceased father bequeathing his estate to Vinay after conferring a life interest upon his wife, which was duly acted upon, including by execution of No Objection Certificates by the daughters.
They further relied upon a registered Will dated 29-08-1985 executed by the deceased mother in favour of Vinay, as well as registered sale deeds, conveyance deeds, and the Gift Deed dated 16-08-2005. It was contended that title stood conclusively vested in Vinay and thereafter in appellants.
The rejection of the plaint was sought on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action, was barred by limitation, was vexatious and illusory, and that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. Aggrieved by the refusal to reject the plaint, the appellants preferred the present intra-court appeal challenging the correctness of the said order
The Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Courts are required to proceed on a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, assuming the averments therein to be correct, without embarking upon an enquiry into their truthfulness.
The Court noted that the plaint contained “specific and unambiguous assertions” that the suit properties were acquired from joint family funds and proceeds of the father’s properties. If such pleadings were accepted at face value and ultimately substantiated, they would vest the plaintiff with a legally enforceable right as a co-sharer. The Court further noted that the defence that the properties were self-acquired or exclusively owned by Vinay was disputed questions of fact, which could not be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11.
Distinguishing Sagar Gambhir v. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7305 and Sunny v. Raj Singh, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13446, the Court held that unlike in those cases, the plaint herein was not bereft of material particulars regarding the source of acquisition of the properties.
On limitation, the Court observed that a suit for partition is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act and that the cause of action is of a recurring nature, crystallising only upon refusal of a demand for partition. The Court noted that the plaint specifically averred that discussions for partition commenced only in 2018 and that refusal followed thereafter. Consequently, the Court held that the plea of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, not amenable to determination at the threshold.
The Court asserted that neither of the grounds urged for rejection of the plaint was made out. The Court held that the plaint, on a meaningful reading, disclosed a clear cause of action, and the reliefs claimed could not be held to be barred by limitation at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Accordingly, the Court found the appeal to be devoid of merit and dismissed the same.
[Vibhuti Jauhari v. Anita Munjal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9569, Decided on 24-12-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. Prity Sharma, Mr. Shikhar Shant, Mr. Ashwani Kaushik and Ms. Umang Motiyani, Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Samrat Nigam, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Ajay Dabas, Mr. Anand Dabas, Ms. Priyanka Dagar, Ms. Arpita Rawat, Mr. Ravi Dagar and Mr. Rishikesh, Counsel for the Respondents