Will Comes Into Operation Only After Demise of Both Testators – Interpretation Cannot Be Done Under Order VII Rule 11: Delhi High Court

“Plaint Survives If Any Cause of Action Exists – No Scope for Partial Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC”, Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking rejection of a suit for partition and declaration based on a registered joint Will. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that when a plaint discloses a cause of action, the Court cannot reject it merely because of disputes regarding facts or interpretation of documents like a Will, especially when such issues necessitate a full-fledged trial.

The case raised critical issues concerning the maintainability of partition suits grounded on joint Wills, the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and the legal impermissibility of partial rejection of pleadings.

"Nature and Intent of Joint Will Raises Complicated Legal Questions Not Decidable at Preliminary Stage"

The Delhi High Court’s judgment centered around the maintainability of a suit for partition and declaration of rights in a property, primarily based on a joint Will executed by Avtar Krishen Trakru and his wife Raj Dulari Trakru. The defendants sought rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, claiming it lacked a valid cause of action, especially regarding the alternative plea of coparcenary rights. Dismissing the application, the Court ruled that the suit raised triable issues and that rejection was unwarranted at this stage.

The plaintiffs, Kanak Trakru and Anmol Trakru, are grandchildren of Avtar Krishen Trakru and children of defendant no. 2, Lalit Trakru. They instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of their rights and partition of properties left behind by their grandparents, based on a joint registered Will dated 01.03.2017. Alternatively, they prayed for partition of the suit properties as coparcenary/HUF properties in which they claimed a 1/12th share each.

The Will had been executed jointly by both testators – the plaintiffs' grandparents – and was claimed to come into effect only upon the demise of both. The defendants contested the maintainability of the suit, especially pointing out the lack of averments regarding the HUF, and argued that the plaintiffs, as grandchildren, had no locus to seek partition during the lifetime of their father.

An application under Order VII Rule 11 was filed by defendant no. 1, Renu Trakru Singla, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a valid cause of action.

Justice Jhingan analyzed the application under the settled principles of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, reiterating that the scope of judicial scrutiny at that stage is strictly limited to the contents of the plaint, without delving into merits or factual controversies.

“The court has not to see whether the claim made by the petitioner is likely to succeed: it has merely to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to the relief he claims,” observed the Court, quoting the Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I.

The Court rejected the contention that lack of detailed pleading about the HUF justified dismissal. It held that since the main relief was based on the Will and the HUF claim was only in the alternative, the plaint could not be rejected for inadequacy in pleadings relating to the alternative plea.

“Partial Rejection of Plaint Not Permissible Under Order VII Rule 11”

The Court reiterated the settled principle that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao v. Madan Mohan Rao, (2023) 18 SCC 231:

“There cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. If the plaint survives against certain defendants or properties, the suit as a whole must proceed to trial.”

Thus, even if one part of the claim (such as the HUF plea) were weak or inadequately pleaded, the entire plaint could not be rejected if the main prayer disclosed a cause of action.

Interpretation of Will Is a Matter for Trial, Not Summary Rejection

A major contention of the defendant was that the joint Will made the surviving testator the absolute owner of the estate, rendering the plaintiffs’ claim untenable. However, the Court noted:

“The effect of the joint Will as to whether the suit property became the self-acquired property of Smt. Raj Dulari Trakru after the death of Sh. Avtar Krishen Trakru would require a decision on complicated questions of law and fact and cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11.”

The Court emphasized that such intricate legal and factual determinations regarding the nature and effect of the Will can only be made after evidence is led and cannot be prejudged at the threshold stage.

Furthermore, the Court took note of ongoing probate proceedings regarding the same Will, wherein the plaintiffs had sought impleadment. It held that while such proceedings were pending, the civil court could not undertake an adjudication on the validity or interpretation of the Will at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

Coparcenary Rights of Grandchildren – Issue Not Relevant at This Stage

The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs, being grandchildren, had no right to seek partition during the lifetime of their father. The Court dismissed the relevance of this objection for the present application:

“The main prayer in the suit is on the basis that plaintiffs are beneficiaries in the Will dated 01.03.2017 and not for seeking partition of a joint estate being a coparcener or as successors of ancestral property.”

Hence, the issue of coparcenary rights of grandchildren was deemed irrelevant for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, as it was not the principal basis of the claim.

The Delhi High Court decisively ruled that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and raised triable issues. The existence of alternative reliefs, pending probate proceedings, and the need for interpretation of a joint Will required the matter to proceed to trial rather than being rejected summarily. Importantly, the Court underscored the legal bar against partial rejection of suits under Order VII Rule 11.

The application was accordingly dismissed, allowing the partition suit to proceed on merits.

Date of Decision: January 28, 2026