Rejection of Plaint Not a Seal of Finality: Delhi HC Reinstates Ancestral Property Partition Suit

125
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court today reinstated a previously dismissed partition suit related to ancestral property, emphasizing the non-finality of the previous rejection. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal, delivered the verdict in the case of RFA(OS) 17/2021, involving appellant Surender Kumar.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The central legal question pertained to the implications of the rejection of a plaint in earlier proceedings and its effect on subsequent suits. The Court delved into whether the dismissal of the appellant’s earlier suit had attained finality and the legitimacy of the amended suit filed thereafter.

Facts and Issues: The dispute centers around ancestral properties, part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The appellant, Surender Kumar, contested the dismissal of his earlier suit, which sought partition of these properties. The Single Judge had dismissed the suit on the grounds of finality of the earlier dismissal and the existence of concurrent suits for the same properties.

Court’s Assessment: The Division Bench scrutinized the series of legal proceedings and decisions. They observed that the appellant’s earlier suit, dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, was not final as he was allowed to file a new suit. In his subsequent suit, CS(OS)418/2016, the appellant incorporated specific amendments, particularly addressing the existence of the HUF.

The Bench underscored that under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the decision should be based solely on the plaint’s allegations, without considering the defendant’s response in the written statement. It was noted that the appellant’s suit included not only partition but also claims for declaration, possession, and injunctions, making it distinct from the previous suit filed by another family member.

Decision: The High Court overturned the Single Judge’s judgment dated March 2, 2020, thereby restoring the suit filed by Surender Kumar. The matter is scheduled for a hearing before the Roster Bench on March 1, 2024.

Date of Decision: February 13, 2024

Surender Kumar vs Late Sh. Dhani Ram Through LRS and Ors

Download Judgment

Share: