Shri Rakesh Chadha And Anther vs Shri Ramesh Anand And Other
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 31 AUGUST, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No.DLHC010471072022
I.A. 38377/2024
In
+ CS(OS) 797/2022
SHRI RAKESH CHADHA AND ANTHER .....Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra with Mr. Anmol
Sethi and Ms. Prachi Dutta,
Advocates
versus
SHRI RAMESH ANAND AND OTHER .....Defendants
Through: Ms. Garima Anand and Mr. Vibhore
Ojha, Advocates for D-1 to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
I.A. 38377/2024
1. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3/Applicants have filed the present
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by
the Plaintiff.
2. The present Suit is one for Declaration of Will dated 05.08.2022
executed by Late Shri Ram Prakash Anand as null and void, Partition,
Rendition of Accounts as well as for permanent injunction. A perusal of the
Plaint shows that Shri Lal Chand Anand, great grandfather of the Plaintiffs
was residing in Rawal Pindi, West Pakistan prior to the partition wherein he
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 1 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
was carrying a business of sale of clothes in the shop which was also
situated in Rawal Pindi, West Pakistan. It is averred that Late Shri Lal
Chand Anand had two daughters and one Son namely Shri Ram Prakash
Anand. It is further averred that prior to the partition, Shri Ram Prakash
Anand got married with one Ms. Swarn Anand and out of their wedlock one
Ms. Harsh was born.
3. It is further stated in the Plaint that after the partition, Late Shri Lal
Chand along with his family got settled at Ferozepur City, Opposite Civil
Hospital, Punjab, in lieu of the same, the Government of India gave
compensation as per the scheme formulated by the Ministry of
Rehabilitation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It is further stated that on returning to India, Late
Shri Lal Chand resumed the business of cloth merchant along with his son
i.e. Shri Ram Prakash Anand and all family members i.e. his wife, son,
daughter in law and grand-daughter started living in the same house as
Hindu Undivided Family having joint mess.
4. It is stated that upon the demise of Shri Lal Chand Anand, Shri Ram
Prakash Anand started looking after the family business, however, gradually
certain disputes arose between the Shri Ram Prakash Anand and his wife
Smt Swarn Anand. It is further stated Shri Ram Prakash Anand entered into
second marriage with one Smt. Raj Kaushalaya without taking divorce from
his first wife. It is stated that subsequently, out of the second marriage, Shri
Ram Prakash Anand had three children’s who are the Defendants herein
and, thereafter, Shri Ram Prakash Anand shifted to Delhi and began working
as a LIC agent.
5. It is further submitted that Shri Ram Prakash Anand and Smt. Swarna
Anand had one daughter namely, Ms Harsh Chadha who got married to Shri
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 2 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
Ram Chander Chadha and from their wedlock, the Plaintiffs herein were
born. It is stated that Shri Ram Prakash Anand died on 04.05.2005 and his
second wife passed away on 31.10.2018. It is stated that the Defendants are
the surviving legal heirs of Shri Ram Prakash Anand and his second Wife
Smt. Raj Kaushalaya Anand. It is further stated that the mother of the
Plaintiff expired on 05.08.2021 thereby leaving the Plaintiffs as the sole
surviving legal heirs.
6. It is further stated that the properties left behind by Shri Ram Prakash
Anand were purchased out of the ancestral funds and savings left behind by
Shri Lal Chand Anand including the compensation amount received by him
from Government of India and since Defendants are borne out of the void
marriage between Shri Ram Prakash Anand and Smt. Raj Kaushalaya
th
Anand, therefore, the share of the Defendants in the said property is 4/15
th
each and share of the Plaintiffs in the same is 1/4 . It is the case of the
Plaintiff that Shri Ram Prakash Anand, during his life time purchased one
plot bearing no. A-28A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi in the year 1956 out of the
ancestral funds left behind by Late Shri Lal Chand Anand. It is further stated
that the said plot was constructed from the ancestral funds only. It is further
th
stated that Plaintiff being the only daughter of Ms. Harsha is entitled to 1/4
th
share in the property bearing no. A-28A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and 1/4
share in the moveable assets left behind by Shri Ram Prakash Anand.
7. It is further stated by the Plaintiff that upon requesting the Defendants
th
for her 1/4 share in the plot bearing no. A-28A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, the
Defendants via WhatsApp message informed the Plaintiff about a Will made
by Shri Ram Prakash Anand during his lifetime. It is the case of the Plaintiff
that the said Will is forged and fabricated as Shri Ram Prakash Anand was
not competent to execute any Will qua the plot bearing no. A-28A, Hauz
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 3 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
Khas, New Delhi and secondly, that the movable and immovable properties
were bought by him out of the ancestral funds. It is the contention of the
Plaintiff that Shri Ram Prakash Anand was under a prolonged illness and
therefore due to his deteriorating health he could not have executed a Will. It
is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are reaping the fruits of the
property bearing no. A-28A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and also enjoying the
income accrued from the movable assets which were in the name of the Shri
Ram Prakash Anand and the custody of the same is with the Defendants.
th
Being the co-owners/ co-sharers, the Plaintiff is entitled to her 1/4 share in
immovable as well as movable properties of Shri Ram Prakash Anand.
8. Summons in the Suit to the Defendants were issued on 15.12.2022.
Issues have yet not been framed in the present Suit.
9. The present application has been filed on behalf of the Defendant
No.1, 2 and 3 stating that the plaint is liable to be rejected mainly on three
grounds i.e., barred on account of vague pleadings, barred by Benami
Transactions Act, and barred by Limitation Act. It is the contention of the
Defendants that the Plaintiff in its plaint has failed to disclose the material
particulars or details qua the ancestral funds and savings as allegedly left
behind by Late Shri Lal Chand Anand and therefore no cause of action is
disclosed under the plaint. It is the further contention of the Defendants that
non-disclosure of necessary facts qua the existence of cause of action of
joint Hindu Family/HUF does not bring the case of the Plaintiff within the
exceptions contained in Section 4(3) of the Benami Act. It is also stated by
the Defendants that the present suit is barred by limitation as the same is
filed after 66 years from the demise of late Shri Lal Chand Anand.
10. For the adjudication of the present Application, it is pertinent to refer
to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 4 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
“ 11. Rejection of plaint.
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct
the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court,
fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the
plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently
stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the
Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a
time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for
reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff
was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature
form correcting the valuation or supplying the
requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the
time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such
time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
11. The law relating to rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of
the CPC is crystallized through various judgments of the Apex Court. The
Apex Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff
Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510, has held as under:
“ 13. Before dealing with the factual scenario, the
spectrum of Order 7 Rule 11 in the legal ambit needs
to be noted.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 5 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
14. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1
SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order 7 Rule
11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be
looked into for deciding an application thereunder are
the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise
the power at any stage of the suit — before registering
the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at
any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the
purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a)
and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, the averments
in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the
defendant in the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage.
15. In I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
[(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question
to be decided while dealing with an application filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real
cause of action has been set out in the plaint or
something purely illusory has been stated with a view
to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
16. The trial court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care
to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If
clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the party searchingly under
Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 467] .)
17. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be
considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As
was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi v.
Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487] only a part
of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of
action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 6 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
rejected.
18. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property
[(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments
in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out
whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 was
applicable.
19. There cannot be any compartmentalisation,
dissection, segregation and inversions of the language
of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is
adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of
interpretation according to which a pleading has to be
read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not
permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to
read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the
substance and not merely the form that has to be
looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it
stands without addition or subtraction of words or
change of its apparent grammatical sense. The
intention of the party concerned is to be gathered
primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings
taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne
in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted
to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.
20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs
sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to be
considered. The real object of Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code is to keep out of courts irresponsible law suits.
Therefore, Order 10 of the Code is a tool in the hands
of the courts by resorting to which and by searching
examination of the party in case the court is prima
facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process
of the court in the sense that it is a bogus and
irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order 7
Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.”
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 7 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
12. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can only be done on
six grounds enumerated therein. The main contention of the Defendants in
the present application is that pleadings in the plaint does not disclose any
cause of action as the same are vague in nature. While determining that
whether the Plaint discloses any cause of action, the Court is not required to
make an elaborate enquiry into the questions of law or facts which are
doubtful or complex in nature. The only enquiry that can be done for want of
cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to ascertain that whether the
averments/allegations levelled in the plaint are sufficient to accrue the right
on the Plaintiff to sue other party.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. &I Assn.
Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr., (2004) 9 SCC 512 held as under:
“ 139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not
is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or
does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself.
For the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in
their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to
whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to
be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.
Cause of action
140. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are
required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of
obtaining relief claimed in the suit. For the
aforementioned purpose, the material facts are required
to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases
where the pleading relies on any misrepresentation,
fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence.
141. Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides as follows:
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 8 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
“14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or
relies.—(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or
relies upon document in his possession or power in
support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a
list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is
presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the
document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or
power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state
in whose possession or power it is.
(3) Where a document or a copy thereof is not filed with
the plaint under this rule, it shall not be allowed to be
received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the
hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced
for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or,
handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”
14. The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd.
V.Mahaveer Lunia and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208 held as under:-
“ 8. The position of law is that rejection of a plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only when the
plaint, on its face and without considering the defence,
fails to disclose a cause of action, is barred by any law,
is undervalued, or is insufficiently stamped. At this
preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its
examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint
and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims.
If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit
cannot be summarily rejected. Keeping in mind this
settled principle of law, we proceed to examine whether
the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”
15. The principal argument raised by Applicants in the application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC are as under: -
i. That the pleadings in the plaint are exceedingly vague regarding
ancestral funds, savings of Lal Chand Anand, the properties
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 9 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
purchased by him out of ancestral funds and therefore the Suit is
not maintainable under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC on account of
vague pleadings.
ii. That the property is in the name of Ram Prakash Anand and
therefore the relief is hit by the provisions of the Benami
Transactions Act.
iii. That the property stood in the name of Lal Chand Anand and that
the claim is being made after 66 years of his death.
16. It is the specific case of the Plaintiffs in the plaint that the great
grandfather of the Plaintiffs, Lal Chand Anand, who was living in Pakistan
before Partition, a fact which has not been denied. It is also the case of the
Plaintiffs that during Partition, Lal Chand Anand left Pakistan and came to
India. It is a fact that on coming to India, they were given compensation and
that he purchased certain properties.
17. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the son of Lal Chand Anand, i.e.,
Ram Prakash Anand, who is the grandfather of the Plaintiffs was married to
one Swarn Anand. It is the specific case of the Plaintiffs that their mother
was born out of the wedlock of Ram Prakash Anand and Swarn Anand.
18. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that during the pendency of the marriage,
Ram Prakash Anand married to one Raj Kaushalaya and therefore the said
marriage is void ab initio and the Defendants who are the children of Ram
Prakash Anand and Raj Kaushalaya are illegitimate children and therefore
having no share in the ancestral properties.
19. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the property in question in the
instant Suit has been purchased out of the ancestral funds. In view of the
averments made in the plaint, the onus will be on the Plaintiffs to prove
during the trial regarding the source of income of Ram Prakash Anand.
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 10 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
20. At this juncture it is apposite to reproduce Order VI Rule 4 of the
CPC, which reads as under:-
“ 4. Particulars to be given where necessary .—
In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful
default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in
which particulars may be necessary beyond such as
are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars
(with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in
the pleading.”
21. A perusal of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC shows that material
particulars are required only when a party in the pleadings relies on
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence.
22. The present suit is for partition and is not based on Order VI Rule 4 of
the CPC and therefore Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC will have no application
to the facts of the present case.
23. The fact that these instances took place pre-Independence and relates
to the great grandfather of the Plaintiffs and at the moment they do not have
the documents will not make the plaint bad. The plaint cannot be rejected on
this ground.
24. The Plaintiffs have also stated that on the death of Ram Prakash
Anand, when the Plaintiffs claimed their share in the Suit Property, they
have been denied their share on the ground that Ram Prakash Anand had
given a Will in favour of his wife. The Will is being challenged on account
of fraud.
25. A legal notice of partition was given by the Plaintiffs to the
Defendants on 23.08.2022 and the Suit has been filed in the year 2022 itself.
Ram Prakash Anand passed away on 04.05.2005. Whether the properties
have been purchased out of money received from the government as
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 11 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
compensation or not is to be ascertained in trial and therefore the
competence of Ram Prakash Anand to give his entire property to his second
wife Raj Kaushalaya would also be a question to be determined at the end of
the trial. In view of this, neither the provisions of Limitation Act nor the
provision of Benami Transactions Act will hit the plaint.
26. All the questions raised in the present application are to be seen in
trial and it is open for the Defendants to raise these questions at the time of
framing of issues.
27. While considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC as held by the Apex Court that this Court only has to see the averments
in the plaint and on those averments, a decision has to be taken whether a
plaint has to be rejected or not. Proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC are special proceedings which cannot be used in a routine manner.
Courts cannot conduct a mini trial under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and
definitely cannot look at the written statement. The Court has to see all the
averments taken in the plaint in toto and whether any provision of Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC is applicable and that the Suit cannot be permitted to
proceed.
28. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.
CS(OS) 797/2022
29. List before the learned Joint Registrar for further proceedings on
14.10.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
AUGUST 31, 2026
KG
Signature Not Verified
CS(OS) 797/2022 Page 12 of 12
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30