Civil Suit Seeking Ownership and Partition Not Barred by Pendency of Probate Proceedings": Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Rejecting Plaint

"Where Plaintiff Claims Ownership, Partition or Possession — Suit Cannot Be Rejected at Threshold Merely for Not Seeking Consequential Relief" - Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on civil procedure and testamentary law, set aside the rejection of a civil suit filed by Smt. Satula Devi, which challenged the validity of a Will and sought ownership and partition of properties valued at approximately ₹5000 crores left behind by her husband, Dr. Mahendra Prasad (DMP). A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the judgment in a batch of connected appeals titled Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. v. Satula Devi & Ors.

The Court held: “The pendency of a probate petition does not bar the maintainability of a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership or partition of the estate of the deceased. A civil suit cannot be thrown out at the threshold merely because the probate proceedings are pending.”

"Plaint Must Be Read Holistically, Not in Isolation; Declaration Without Consequential Relief Can Still Be Maintainable"

The Court found fault with the Single Judge's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stating that the suit disclosed a clear cause of action and could not be dismissed for lack of consequential relief.

“While examining the plaint, it is expected from the Court that the plaint will be read comprehensively and in its entirety, rather than in isolation… The Plaintiff's failure to pray for return of her Stridhan is not fatal when the pleadings permit moulding of relief.”

The Bench rejected the reasoning that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act merely because the Plaintiff did not specifically seek possession or refund of gold.

“When plaintiff is in possession or when the property is under Court's custodia legis, a suit for declaration without seeking further relief is not barred under the proviso to Section 34.”

"Cause of Action for Partition and Ownership Commences on Death of the Deceased, Not Earlier"

Rejecting the limitation objection raised by the defendants, the Court held that:

“The Plaintiff’s cause of action to claim a share in the movable and immovable properties left behind by her husband would only arise upon the opening of succession, i.e., upon his death.”

The Single Judge had erroneously held that the cause of action was time-barred since the Plaintiff did not protest the transfer of shares to the children or the formation of companies. The Division Bench clarified:

“If the parties were living jointly and happily, the cause of action for recovery of the alleged Stridhan would not arise on establishment of the companies, particularly when 70% of the shares were held in her name or in the names of her children.”

"Alternative Prayer for Partition Is Maintainable Even Without Detailed Foundation at Threshold Stage"

The Court rejected the Single Judge's view that the prayer for partition lacked foundational pleadings.

“Though no specific foundation has been laid in the plaint for seeking partition, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to reject the plaint for lack of foundation, particularly when the Plaintiff has expressly sought a prayer for partition in her suit.”

The Court noted that the Plaintiff had made an alternative prayer for partition, seeking 1/4th share in the estate, in case the Will was held valid.

“In substance, the Plaintiff has prayed that if the Will is not proved in accordance with law, she would be entitled to a share in the properties under natural succession. The prayer for partition, in such circumstances, is maintainable.”

"Rejection of Plaint Can Only Be in Whole, Not in Part — Order VII Rule 11 Does Not Permit Partial Rejection of Reliefs"

The Division Bench was categorical that the Single Judge erred by rejecting only some reliefs in the plaint:

“Order VII Rule 11 does not contemplate partial rejection. Rejection of only certain prayers is improper in law.”

Even if the prayer relating to the Will was not maintainable during the pendency of probate proceedings, the suit could continue on the Plaintiff’s alternative plea for partition and ownership.

"Plaintiff Cannot Be Penalised for Alleged Variance with Averments in Prior Writ Petition"

Addressing another ground taken by the Single Judge — that the plaint was inconsistent with averments made in the earlier Guardianship Petition — the Court held:

“Such a ground cannot form the basis for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Guardianship Petition does not form part of the plaint. This is a matter of evidence and trial.”

"Civil Suit for Ownership and Partition Is Maintainable Despite Pending Probate — Scope of Civil Court Is Not Ousted"

Crucially, the Bench reaffirmed the settled legal position: “During the pendency of the Probate Petition, the Civil Court may not be entitled to examine the validity of the Will; however, this could not be construed as a ground to reject the plaint.”

The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of a civil court in a suit for partition and ownership is not ousted merely because a probate proceeding is pending. At most, such civil proceedings may be stayed till the Will’s validity is determined.

"Guardianship Proceedings Infructuous After Death — But Status Quo to Continue Until Orders in Probate Petition"

The Division Bench also disposed of 11 Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) and FAO(OS) 38/2024, which challenged various interim and final orders in the Guardianship and related proceedings.

“After the death of DMP, the Guardianship Petition became infructuous. The orders passed therein including appointment of Sole Guardian were temporary and cease to operate upon final orders in probate proceedings.”

However, the Court continued the status quo arrangement in respect of DMP’s movable and immovable assets:

“Status quo directions passed by LSJ concerning movable and immovable properties and financial assets of DMP to continue until varied by orders in probate proceedings.”

"Proceedings of Civil Suit to Be Consolidated With Pending Probate Petition"

In view of the overlapping issues in both proceedings, the Court directed consolidation:

“It is considered appropriate to consolidate the proceedings of the suit bearing CS(OS) 203/2022 with that of the Probate Petition pending between the parties i.e. TEST.CAS. 1/2022.”

All parties have been directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 23 September 2025.

"Rejection Order Set Aside — Civil Suit Revived With Liberty to Amend and Pay Deficient Court Fee"

Summing up, the Bench concluded: “Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the Impugned Order passed by the LSJ is set aside; while keeping it open to the parties to pray for amendment, for making good the deficiency in court fee and filing application under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC.”

It further clarified that the Defendants were free to seek a stay of civil proceedings until the conclusion of probate, which the LSJ may consider appropriately.

Date of Judgment: 16 September 2025