Sonia D'Souza & Ors. v. Sheela & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 09 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:5699

Subramonium Prasad

CS(OS) 363/2019

2026:DHC:5699

civil appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that a suit challenging a Sale Deed on grounds of fraud and coercion cannot be summarily rejected on limitation grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without evidence and allowed the suit to proceed to trial.

Full Text

CS(OS) 363/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th JULY, 2026

CS(OS) 363/2019
SONIA D'SOUZA & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Ankur Sood, Mr. Dhaman Trivedi, Ms. Romila Mandal, Mr. Prajwal Suman, Advs.
Mr. Pratyush Sharma (DHCLSC Advocate) and Mr. Binish Kumar, Advocate for P-4

VERSUS

SHEELA & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Santosh, Defendant No.2 (In person)
Ms. Sanigdha Sood Madan, DHCLSC, Adv., for Defendants Nos.
1 & 2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

(ORAL)

I.A. 34050/2024

1. The present application has been filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 and Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The Defendants have also prayed for striking out the pleadings in the Plaint relating to the challenge to the Sale Deed and the Powers of Attorney, on the ground that such pleadings are unnecessary, frivolous and an abuse of the process of Court as they are ex facie barred by limitation. 18.05.31

2. The present Suit has been instituted by the Plaintiffs seeking partition, declaration and consequential reliefs in respect of the estate of Late Smt. Heera Devi, who died intestate on 30.12.2016. The Plaintiffs claim that they, along with the Defendants, are the legal heirs of Late Smt. Heera Devi and are entitled to their respective shares in the properties left behind by her.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present Suit, are as under: a. It is stated that Late Smt. Heera Devi was married to Late Sh. Ganga Ram. They had four sons, namely, Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal (father of Plaintiffs No. 1, 2 & 3), Sh. Nand Kishore (Plaintiff No. 5), Sh. Shiv Kumar (Defendant No. 2) and Sh. Ashok Kumar (Defendant No. 3), and one daughter, namely, Smt. Chandra Kanta (Plaintiff No. 4). Defendant No. 1, Smt. Sheela, is the wife of Defendant No. 2. Thus, the dispute is between the children and grandchildren of Late Smt. Heera Devi concerning her estate. b. It is stated that Late Sh. Ganga Ram died on 26.12.1977, leaving behind several immovable properties. According to the Plaint, after his demise, certain properties came to be held in the name of Late Smt. Heera Devi, who continued to remain in possession thereof as the head of the family. c. The properties sought to be partitioned in the present Suit are as under:

A. One plot ad-measuring 120 sq. yards within Lal Dora, Dr.

Ambedkar Colony, V.P.O. Khera Khurd, Delhi. 18.05.31

B. Property bearing No. 46, Near MTNL Telephone

Exchange, Khera Khurd, Delhi-110082, ad-measuring 1008 sq. yards, Khasra No. 559/1, V.P.O. Khera Khurd, Delhi.

C. Property bearing No. B-2/245, Second Floor, Sector-16,

Rohini, Near Sardar Colony Bus Stand, Delhi-110085, stated to have been purchased out of the sale proceeds of a property ad-measuring 40 sq. yards at Mukesh Colony, Ballabhgarh, Haryana. d. The shares of the parties in the properties are not being discussed at this juncture as they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Application. e. It is not disputed that the father of the Plaintiffs herein - Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal filed a Suit, being CS(OS) No. 333/2009, before this Court, seeking partition of the estate of Late Sh. Ganga Ram, which included the properties sought to be partitioned in the present Suit as well. Plaintiffs No. 4, 5, 6 herein were arrayed as Defendants No. 2, 5 and 6 respectively in the said Suit. Defendant No. 2 in the present Suit was arrayed as Defendant No. 4 in CS(OS) No. 333/2009, whereas Defendant No. 3 in the present Suit was arrayed as Defendant No. 1 in CS(OS) No. 333/2009. f. It is stated that in the said Suit an interim injunction was passed on 06.04.2009 wherein this Court had directed that no coercive steps be taken to dispossess Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal from the joint family property. 18.05.31 g. It is stated that during the pendency of CS(OS) No. 333/2009, Defendant No. 2 herein obtained Powers of Attorney dated 17.11.2008 and 16.07.2009 in his favour by exercising coercion, undue influence and fraud upon Late Smt. Heera Devi, and thereafter got a Sale Deed executed on 19.07.2010 in favour of Defendant No. 1, who is his wife. It is alleged that the said documents are sham, forged and void, and were created only to deprive the Plaintiffs of their lawful share in the Suit Properties. h. It is stated that Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal passed away on 03.07.2017. Upon his demise, Plaintiffs herein were substituted as his legal representatives in CS(OS) No. 333/2009 vide order dated 25.01.2019. i. It is stated that vide Preliminary Decree dated 10.03.2014, passed in CS(OS) No. 333/2009 and this Court declined to partition the properties standing in the name of Late Smt. Heera Devi, observing that those properties could not form part of the estate of Late Sh. Ganga Ram as they stood in the exclusive name of Late Smt. Heera Devi, who was then alive. Consequently, the preliminary decree confined itself to the estate of Late Sh. Ganga Ram and left the properties standing in the name of Late Smt. Heera Devi outside its purview. j. It is stated that Late Smt. Heera Devi died intestate on 30.12.2016. According to the Plaint, upon her death, all her legal heirs succeeded to her estate, including the Suit Properties, in equal shares. The Plaintiffs assert that the Sale 18.05.31 Deed and the Powers of Attorney relied upon by Defendant NO. 1 and Defendant No. 2 are illegal, void and not binding upon them. k. Since the properties standing in the name of Late Smt. Heera Devi had not been partitioned in the earlier proceedings, the Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit seeking partition of the Suit Property and a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 19.07.2010 and the Powers of Attorney dated 17.11.2008 and 16.07.2009 are null and void, and not binding upon them on the ground that Defendant No. 2, executed the documents by exercising fraud, coercion and undue influence on Late Smt. Heera Devi, who was old and suffering from ailments. It is further alleged that the Sale Deed was a sham transaction, executed during the pendency of CS(OS) No. 333/2009 in violation of the interim injunction dated 06.04.2009, with the object of illegally depriving the Plaintiffs of their lawful share in the estate of Late Smt. Heera Devi.

4. The present application has been filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the Plaint on the ground that the present Suit, insofar as it seeks partition of the property covered by the Sale Deed dated 20.07.2010 and cancellation of the said Sale Deed and the Powers of Attorney, is ex facie barred by limitation and is, therefore, liable to be rejected.

5. It is the contention of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the Plaintiffs had complete knowledge of the Sale Deed dated 20.07.2010 from the earlier 18.05.31 proceedings in CS(OS) No. 333/2009, particularly from the replication dated 01.10.2013 wherein the execution of the Sale Deed was specifically pleaded. It is submitted that Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3, having been substituted as legal representatives of Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal, and Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6, who were parties to the earlier Suit, were fully aware of the transaction. It is submitted that, despite having such knowledge, neither Late Smt. Heera Devi during her lifetime nor Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal instituted any proceedings within the prescribed period of limitation seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed. Even thereafter, the Plaintiffs also failed to initiate any such proceedings within the period of limitation.

6. It is further contended that the Plaint does not contain any averment explaining how the challenge to the Sale Deed dated 20.07.2010 and the Powers of Attorney dated 17.11.2008 and 16.07.2009 is within limitation, nor does it disclose any facts warranting exclusion or extension of the limitation period. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 further submit that the preliminary decree dated 10.03.2014 passed in CS(OS) No. 333/2009 merely held that the properties standing in the name of Late Smt. Heera Devi could not be partitioned in that Suit and did not set aside the Sale Deed. The said decree attained finality and was followed by the final decree dated 25.07.2019.

7. It is, therefore, the case of the Defendant Nos.[1] and 2 that since the Sale Deed was not challenged within the prescribed period of limitation, the property covered thereby did not form part of the estate of Late Smt. Heera Devi at the time of her death, and the Plaintiffs have no right either to seek partition of the said property or cancellation of the Sale Deed. Accordingly, Defendant Nos.[1] and 2 contend that on the basis of the averments and admissions contained in the Plaint itself, the Suit is barred by limitation and 18.05.31 the Plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. It is also contended in the Application that certain averments in the Plaint are contrary to the earlier pleadings and deserve to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC.

8. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. For the adjudication of the present Application, it is pertinent to refer to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which reads as under:

20,696 characters total

“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

18.05.31 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.”

10. 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. 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

18.05.31 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 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 18.05.31 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.”

11. Perusal of the above observations of the Apex Court shows that the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the very threshold, without proceeding to record evidence or conduct a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court.

12. While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, this Court is confined only to examining the averments in the Plaint and the documents filed and to see as to whether a real cause of action has been set out in the Plaint or not and to make sure that the plaint is not manifestly vexatious and meritless. The defence raised by the Defendants or disputed questions of fact cannot be considered while deciding such an application. 18.05.31 If, upon a meaningful reading of the Plaint as a whole, it discloses a cause of action and the bar of law is not apparent on the face of the Plaint, rejection thereof is impermissible.

13. In the present case, the Plaint has been instituted primarily as a Suit for partition. The Plaintiffs have pleaded that the Sale Deed dated 20.07.2010 in favour of Defendant No. 1 is void, having been procured by fraud and coercion, and that it was executed in violation of an interim injunction passed by this Court in the earlier Suit. At least one property, being a plot ad-measuring 120 sq. yards within Lal Dora, Dr. Ambedkar Colony, V.P.O. Khera Khurd, Delhi, is not hit by any of the documents and is, therefore, available for partition. It is well settled that Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not permit piecemeal rejection of a Plaint. The Court has to either reject the Plaint as a whole or not reject it at all. It cannot reject the Plaint in respect of some reliefs while allow the remainder of the Suit to proceed, unless the reliefs are completely severable and constitute independent causes of action. There are specific averments in the Plaint that the Sale Deed dated 20.07.2010 is void ab initio as it was executed in violation of the interim injunction dated 06.04.2009 passed by this Court in CS(OS) No. 333/2009, and that Defendant No. 2 got it executed from Late Smt. Heera Devi by fraud, coercion and undue influence.

14. Whether the Sale Deed is void, whether the Plaintiffs had prior knowledge thereof, whether their claim is barred by limitation, and whether the Defendants have established ouster or exclusion are all questions which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold merely on the basis of the present application.

15. Before dealing with the prayer under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, it 18.05.31 is apposite to reproduce Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC and the same reads as under: “Order VI Rule 16 – Striking out pleadings The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading— (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the Suit; or

16. The pleadings sought to be struck off pertain to the Plaintiffs’ case regarding the nature of the properties and the alleged fraudulent conduct of the Defendants. Such averments cannot be said to be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the Suit. In the opinion of this Court, the pleadings constitute the foundation of the Plaintiffs’ cause of action and their correctness can only be tested during trial upon appreciation of evidence. The extraordinary power under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC cannot be invoked to strike out pleadings merely because the Defendants dispute their correctness.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issues raised by the Defendants involve disputed questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact which can only be determined after the parties have led evidence. 18.05.31

18. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

19. It is made clear that the observations made in the present Order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case, and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated during trial. I.A. 33622/2024

20. The present application has been filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.[1] and 2 for recall of the Order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Joint

21. It is stated by the Defendant Nos.[1] and 2 that the said Order was not communicated to them. They stated that on being informed about the said Order, the Defendants had requested the Counsel to move an appropriate application and the draft application was shared with them but the same was not followed up. In the meantime, COVID-19 struck.

22. The Applicants herein place reliance on the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in RE: Congnizance for Extension of Limitation, 2022 (3) SCC

117. The Applicants therefore state that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should be excluded for the purpose of filing the written statement.

23. In the application, the entire burden has been put on the lawyer, Mr. Gaurang Singh Bindra. The present application has therefore been filed by the Defendants for recall of the Order dated 09.09.2020.

24. In the opinion of this Court, the application is completely misconceived. The learned Joint Registrar vide Order dated 09.09.2020 has closed the right of the Defendants to file the written statement. The remedy of the Applicants therefore lies in filing an appeal under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. 18.05.31

25. In view of the specific provision in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, the Defendants/Applicants could not have filed the present application invoking powers under Section 151 of the CPC.

26. It is settled law that when there are specific provisions providing the remedy, the powers under Section 151 of the CPC should not be invoked.

27. In view of the above, the application is disposed of as nonmaintainable.

28. It is open for the Defendants/Applicants to take remedies as available in accordance with law. CS(OS) 363/2019 & I.A. 9766/2019, I.A. 34051/2024, I.A. 48134/2024

29. List before the Joint Registrar on 24.08.2026.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JULY 09, 2026 Rahul/hsk

Sonia D'Souza & Ors. v. Sheela & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation