Delhi High Court - Orders
Manisha vs Sultan Singh on 17 July, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~104
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 631/2025
MANISHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.
versus
SULTAN SINGH .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 17.07.2025 RFA 631/2025 CM APPL. 42009/2025 (for stay) By way of the present regular first appeal filed under section 96 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC'), the appellant impugns order and decree dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-05, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Suit No. 105/2023.
2. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant points-
out, that by way of the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the plaint on the principles of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. Mr. Kumar draws the court's attention to the prayers made in the plaint, which read as follows:
"a. pass a decree of recovery in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant to pay the amount of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lac fifty thousand. only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the plaintiff.
"b. pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant thereby restraining him, his assignees, attorneys etc. from selling, transferring, letting out, parting with and from creating third party interest in any manner in the above. mentioned suit RFA 631/2025 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:07:53 properties i.e. 1/24th undivided share in Khasra nos. 18//24(1-19), 22/4(4-12), 7(6-15), 59/1(0-8), 59/2(3-13) and 62 (0-6) i.e. situated in the revenue estate of Village Pandwala Khurd, New Delhi (sic) have been illegally colonized and converted into plots and the plaintiff and defendant are having a plot measuring 330 sq. yds. The defendant & plaintiff are also having one Lal Dora built up property measuring about 100 Sq. Yds. In Village Pandwala Khurd, Delhi in the said khasra.
"c) Any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Learned counsel submits that properties comprised in Khasra Nos.
59/1(0-8), 59/2(3-13) and 62(0-6) in Village: Pandwala Khurd, New Delhi are ancestral properties in the hands of the defendant, who is the grandfather of the appellant/plaintiff.
5. Counsel submits that the appellant had made two claims in the plaint:
5.1. For recovery of money towards the appellant's property that has already been sold; and 5.2. For a share in the property (that the appellant says has not been sold) which the appellant claims was ancestral in the hands of the respondent (grandfather).
6. Counsel informs the court that the appellant's father passed-away on 19.11.2004, when the appellant was about 10 months old; but the appellant's grandfather, the respondent, is still alive.
7. Learned counsel submits however, that the trial court has summarily rejected the plaint on the ground of "lack of cause of action", based on a complete misappreciation of the fact that the properties in question are/were ancestral in the hands of the grandfather.
8. Mr. Kumar draws attention to pas 9 and 11 of the impugned order, which read as under:
RFA 631/2025 Page 2 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:07:53
"9. Contention of the plaintiff is that, being granddaughter of defendant, she inherited right by birth in the ancestral property, and defendant has no right to dispose of the same without seeking permission from the plaintiff. But, this court is not inclined with facts and relief pleaded/claimed by plaintiff in terms of section 6 r/w section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, which clearly provide general rule of succession in case of males. Hence, plaintiff cannot claim any independent right, title or interest on ancestral property during the lifetime of grand-father.
***** "11. Keeping in view the above legal position and the averments made in the plaint, it is manifest that the properties which are owned by defendant cannot be said to be HUF or ancestral property. The plaintiff cannot claim that she has a right by birth in these properties. Hence, present plaint is rejected being lack of cause of action. It is clarified that this court has decided maintainability strictly on the averment made in the plaint and not gone into the argument taken in defence qua validity of adoption of late father of the plaintiff.
(emphasis supplied)
9. It is argued however, that in the face of the appellant's contention that the suit property was ancestral, the learned trial court failed to consider the provisions of sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 ('Hindu Succession Act'), particularly after the amendment to section 6 by Act No. 139/2005 with effect from 09.09.2005; and also the fact that the 'daughter of a predecessor son' is a Class-I legal heirs under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
RFA 631/2025 Page 3 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:07:53
10. Learned counsel states that, at the very least, the plaint could not have been rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case; and in any event, not on the ground of "lack of cause of action", which can only be decided after trial.
11. Issue notice.
12. Upon the appellant taking steps, let notice be sent to the respondent by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.
13. Let trial court record be requisitioned in electronic form; and copy of TCR be supplied to counsel on request.
14. Let the notice indicate that reply to CM APPL. No. 42009/2025 be filed within 06 weeks of service; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copy to the opposing counsel.
15. Re-notify on 06th October 2025 before the learned Joint-Registrar for completion of service.
16. No reply is required in the appeal.
17. List before court thereafter.
18. On the prima-facie view of the matter, in view of the position of law canvassed on behalf of the appellant, the effect and operation of the impugned order and decree dated 05.04.2025 shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing before this court.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JULY 17, 2025 ds RFA 631/2025 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:07:53