Delhi District Court
Sh. Prem Chand vs Sh. Sukh Pal on 20 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 : SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ
CNR No: DLSW01-011521-2024
PREM CHAND
S/O LATE SAMAY SINGH
R/O: RZ-A-5, GALI NO. 1,
RAJAPURI, UTTAM NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 110059.
PERMANENT ADDRESS
RZ-G-55
(KH. NO. 100/23, PALAM VILLAGE)
VISHWAS PARK, GALI NO. 4,
UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110059.
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUKHPAL
S/O LATE SAMAY SINGH
R/O: RZG-10, GALI NO. 4,
VISHWAS PARK, UTTAM NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 110059.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
RZ-F-99/40A, SADH NAGAR - II,
STREET NO. 41A, PALAM COLONY,
NEW DELHI
....RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.11.2024
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 14.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.11.2025
Digitally
signed by
SUMIT
SUMIT DALAL
DALAL Date:
2025.11.21
17:10:55
+0530
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal challenges the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge-03, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the plaint filed by the appellant in Civil Suit No. 70/2020 was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit sought a declaration that three registered Wills dated 25.05.2011 executed by the appellant's deceased mother, Late Ramko Devi, in favour of the respondent (defendant no. 1) were null and void.
Factual Matrix
2. The appellant (plaintiff) filed a declaratory suit seeking to declare three registered Wills dated 25.05.2011 as null and void. The appellant alleged that his mother, Late Ramko Devi, who died on 23.04.2017, was the owner of three immovable properties situated in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant contended that his brother, the respondent, fraudulently obtained the execution of these Wills when their mother was physically and mentally unfit due to old age, without intimation to other legal heirs. The appellant came to know about these Wills only in August 2019.
3. The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds. The learned predecessor court of Civil Judge-03, dismissed the first application filed under Order VII Rule 11 vide order dated 15.11.2022. Thereafter, the respondent filed a second application Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:11:05 +0530 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 2 of 17 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 12.09.2024, resulting in rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit for declaration simpliciter without seeking consequential reliefs of possession, partition and injunction was not maintainable, and that there was no valuation clause in the plaint.
Grounds of Rejection by the Trial Court
4. The learned Trial Court rejected the plaint primarily on two grounds:
a) First, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the Wills were null and void without claiming consequential reliefs of possession, partition and injunction. The Trial Court held that when the plaintiff admitted he was not in possession of any of the three properties which were subject matter of the Wills, it was incumbent upon him to seek relief of possession, partition and injunction along with declaration. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff's intention was not merely to get the Wills declared as null and void but to get his share in the properties as a Class-I legal heir. Therefore, a simplicitor suit for declaration without claiming other consequential reliefs was held not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
b) Second, the plaint contained no valuation clause despite involving three immovable properties. The Trial Court held that the suit for declaration simplicitor in respect of Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:11:13 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 3 of 17 +0530 immovable property must be valued as per the market value of the property as provided in Rule 7 Vol. 1 Chapter 3 Part C of the Delhi High Court Rules. The Trial Court observed that if proper valuation was given and found to be more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court (i.e., more than Rs. 3,00,000/-), the plaint would have to be returned to be filed in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Submissions of the Appellant
5. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the following principal grounds:
a. The Trial Court did not give proper opportunities to both parties and did not hear them on merits before passing the impugned order.
b. The respondent had already filed one application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was dismissed by the predecessor court vide order dated 15.11.2022. Filing another application on the same/similar grounds cannot be maintainable. c. The predecessor court in its order dated 15.11.2022 had held that the plaintiff is the master of his own suit and cannot be forced to seek relief and pay court fee on reliefs which he does not deem desirable. The court had also noted that since the respondent had filed a civil suit for possession (CS No. 569/2019), it consequently meant that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The Trial Court completely ignored these findings.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:11:28 +0530 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 4 of 17 d. The appellant came to know about the fraudulent execution of Wills only in August 2019, and in December 2019 learned that the respondent was trying to sell the properties. The respondent threatened to sell the properties at throwaway prices, which would cause huge loss to the appellant.
Submissions of the Respondent
6. The respondent has opposed the appeal through preliminary objections:
a. The appeal is a gross misuse of process of law as the Trial Court heard both parties at length. The application was decided not only on ingredients of Order VII Rule 11 CPC but mainly on the statement made by the appellant on 30.08.2024 wherein he admitted he was not in possession of the suit properties.
b. The plaint has no valuation clause despite involving three immovable properties, and the suit seeks only declaration regarding the Wills without any consequential relief of partition and possession. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint.
c. The appeal is not properly verified and is liable to be dismissed.
Legal Framework and Judicial Precedents A. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 SUMIT DALAL Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.11.21 17:11:34 +0530 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 5 of 17
7. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right. The proviso to Section 34 states: "Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so".
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession. In Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.
Lrs. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the law becomes crystal clear that it is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration without seeking consequential relief when the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property.
B. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
9. Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of plaint in specified circumstances including where it does not disclose a cause of action (clause a), where the relief claimed is undervalued (clause b), and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law (clause d).
10. The Supreme Court has held that rejection of plaint is a "digression" from normal adjudication and should be resorted to only when the plaint, by its own deficiencies, invites such rejection. The Court must examine only the averments in the plaint and documents filed therewith, without looking into the defence pleaded SUMIT by the defendant.
DALAL Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 6 of 17 Date: 2025.11.21 17:11:42 +0530 C. Multiple Applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
11. Applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be filed multiple times if new grounds for rejection arise or if the plaint is amended. The court's duty to reject a plaint for non-compliance can be invoked repeatedly as long as the grounds for rejection are valid and based on the allegations in the plaint.
12. However, if an earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 has been dismissed on merits and the grounds urged in the second application are the same as those decided in the first application, the second application may not be maintainable.
D. Res Judicata and Order VII Rule 11 CPC
13. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The Court held that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into. Since adjudication on the issue of res judicata involves consideration of pleadings in the earlier suit and judgments of courts, it cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
E. Order II Rule 2 CPC SUMIT DALAL RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 7 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.11.21 17:11:53 +0530
14. The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC comes into operation where the cause of action on which the previous suit was filed forms the foundation of the subsequent suit, and when the plaintiff could have claimed the relief sought in the subsequent suit in the earlier suit, and both suits are between the same parties. Furthermore, the bar under Order II Rule 2 must be specifically pleaded by the defendant and the trial court should specifically frame an issue wherein the pleading in the earlier suit must be examined and the plaintiff is given an opportunity to demonstrate that the cause of action in the subsequent suit is different.
F. Valuation of Suit
15. As per Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, in any suit to enforce right to share in any property, the court fee is payable according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. However, the market value of immovable property involved in litigation might have relevance depending on the nature of relief claimed, but ultimately the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the nature of relief claimed.
Analysis and Findings A. Maintainability of Second Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
16. The first and foremost question is whether the second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the respondent Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL 2025.11.21 Date:
17:12:01 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 8 of 17 +0530 was maintainable when the first application had already been dismissed by the predecessor court vide order dated 15.11.2022.
17. On perusal of the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned predecessor court, it is evident that the predecessor court dismissed the first application on the ground that the suit was within limitation, that Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act was applicable to suits for injunction and not declaration, that the plaintiff is the master of his own suit, and that the plea of Order II Rule 2 CPC could not be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
18. The impugned order dated 12.09.2024 expressly records that the second and third grounds for rejection of plaint (i.e., limitation and Order II Rule 2 CPC) had already been considered and dealt with by the predecessor court in the order dated 15.11.2022 and there was no new development or change which required the court to deal with these contentions again. Therefore, these grounds were held baseless.
19. However, the impugned order proceeds to consider two other grounds:
a. that the plaintiff admitted he was not in possession of the suit properties, and therefore a simplicitor suit for declaration without claiming consequential reliefs of possession, partition and injunction was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and b. that there was no valuation clause in the plaint.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 9 of 17 DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:12:09 +0530
20. While the law permits filing of multiple applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on different grounds or when the plaint is amended, in the present case, the question of possession of the plaintiff and the question of valuation were very much available to be raised in the first application itself. The respondent had, in fact, raised the ground of lack of possession in the first application as well. The predecessor court in its order dated 15.11.2022 had noted that the respondent had filed a civil suit for possession titled "Sukhpal vs Vijay Pal & Anr" (CS No. 569/2019), which consequently meant that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.
21. However, the impugned order notes a significant development: in the written clarifications filed by the plaintiff and in the statement recorded in court on 30.08.2024, the plaintiff admitted that he was not in physical possession of all three properties which were subject matter of the Wills, and that he had only constructive possession of property no. RZ-G-55, which was not even a property subject matter of the Wills in question. This admission by the plaintiff was not available to the Trial Court when the first application was decided.
22. Therefore, to the extent the second application was based on the fresh admission made by the plaintiff regarding lack of possession, the second application cannot be said to be not maintainable on the ground that the first application had already been dismissed. The law does not bar the court from considering a fresh ground which arises subsequent to the dismissal of the first Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 10 of 17 DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:12:16 +0530 application, particularly when it is based on an admission made by the plaintiff himself.
B. Whether Suit for Declaration Simplicitor is Maintainable
23. The crucial question in this appeal is whether a suit seeking declaration that three registered Wills are null and void, without seeking consequential reliefs of possession, partition and injunction, is maintainable when the plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the properties which are subject matter of the Wills.
24. The law on this aspect is well-settled. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the Court shall not make any declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
25. In Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the law becomes crystal clear that it is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration without seeking consequential relief. In the instant case, the suit for declaration of title of ownership had been filed, though Respondent 1-plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of the suit property. Thus, the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, ought to have been dismissed solely on this ground.
26. In Ram Saran & Anr. v. Ganga Devi (1973) 2 SCC 60 and Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra & Anr (1993) Supp 3 SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that a suit seeking declaration of title of ownership where possession is not Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 11 of 172025.11.21 17:12:23 +0530 sought is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and is not maintainable
27. Therefore, when a plaintiff is not in possession, it is essential to seek both a declaration of title and a decree for recovery of possession. A standalone declaration without possession offers no legal benefit and is likely to be dismissed.
28. Applying these settled legal principles to the facts of the present case:
a. The plaintiff has categorically admitted in his written clarifications and in his statement recorded in court on 30.08.2024 that he is not in physical possession of any of the three properties which are subject matter of the Wills dated 25.05.2011.
b. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that his mother Late Ramko Devi died on 23.04.2017, and that all her properties should devolve upon all her surviving Class-I legal heirs equally. The plaintiff contends that the three Wills executed in favour of the defendant no. 1 were fraudulent, and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to his share in the properties as a Class-I legal heir. c. The clear intention of the plaintiff, as discernible from the plaint, is not merely to get an academic declaration that the Wills are null and void, but to ultimately claim his share in the properties left by his mother. This is evident from the averments in the plaint that all properties of the mother should devolve upon all surviving Class-I legal heirs equally. SUMIT DALAL Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.11.21 17:12:30 +0530 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 12 of 17 d. Once it is established that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties and that his ultimate intention is to claim his share in the properties, it becomes incumbent upon the plaintiff to seek the consequential reliefs of possession and partition along with the declaration. A mere declaration that the Wills are null and void, without seeking possession and partition, would be an empty formality which cannot be enforced and would necessitate a fresh suit for possession and partition.
e. The proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is attracted in such circumstances, and the Court cannot make a declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration, omits to do so.
f. The learned predecessor court's observation in the order dated 15.11.2022 that since the defendant had filed a suit for possession (CS No. 569/2019), it consequently meant that the plaintiff was in possession, cannot be sustained in view of the categorical admission made by the plaintiff in his written clarifications and statement dated 30.08.2024 that he is not in possession of the suit properties. An inference drawn by a court regarding a question of fact cannot override a categorical admission made by a party himself. g. The appellant's counsel may argue that the plaintiff is the master of his suit and cannot be compelled to seek reliefs which he does not wish to seek. This principle, while generally correct, cannot be applied to defeat the statutory bar contained Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 13 of 17 17:12:48 +0530 in the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that when a plaintiff is not in possession and seeks declaration, he must also seek possession, otherwise the suit is not maintainable.
29. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that a simplicitor suit for declaration without claiming consequential reliefs of possession, partition and injunction was not maintainable when the plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of the suit properties.
C. Absence of Valuation Clause
30. The second ground on which the plaint was rejected was absence of valuation clause. The Trial Court held that the suit for declaration simplicitor in respect of immovable property must be valued as per the market value of the property as provided in Rule 7 Vol. 1 Chapter 3 Part C of the Delhi High Court Rules, and that without proper valuation, the Court could not determine whether it had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.
31. While this ground may have merit in appropriate cases, in the present case, since the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, it is not necessary to dwell upon the question of valuation in detail. The bar of Section 34 is a substantive bar which goes to the root of the maintainability of the suit itself, whereas the question of valuation is a procedural aspect which can be cured by directing the plaintiff to furnish proper valuation and pay deficit court fee.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 14 of 17 DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:12:55 +0530 Conclusion
32. After careful consideration of the pleadings, the impugned order, the legal position as settled by various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both parties, this Court records the following findings:
a. The appellant has categorically admitted in his written clarifications and in his statement recorded in court on 30.08.2024 that he is not in physical possession of any of the three properties which are subject matter of the Wills dated 25.05.2011.
b. From the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the appellant's intention is not to obtain a mere academic declaration but to ultimately claim his share in the properties as a Class-I legal heir of his deceased mother.
c. The appellant is able to seek further relief of partition and possession along with the declaration, but has deliberately omitted to do so.
d. In view of the above, the suit is barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits grant of mere declaration when the plaintiff is able to seek further relief but omits to do so.
e. The principle that plaintiff is master of his suit cannot be invoked to defeat the statutory bar created by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
SUMIT DALAL RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 15 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.11.21 17:13:01 +0530 f. The second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was maintainable, particularly in view of the fresh admission made by the appellant on 30.08.2024 regarding non-possession, which was not available when the first application was decided on 15.11.2022.
g. The learned Trial Court rightly held that the suit for declaration simplicitor without seeking consequential reliefs of possession, partition and injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the suit properties.
h. The learned Trial Court has correctly applied the law and has rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Order
33. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
34. The order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge-03, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is hereby confirmed and upheld.
35. The plaint in Civil Suit No. 70/2020 stands rejected.
36. The appellant shall be at liberty to file a fresh suit with proper and complete cause of action, claiming appropriate reliefs in accordance with law, if so advised.
37. No order as to costs.
Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:13:09 +0530 RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 16 of 17
38. File be consigned to record room after due compliances.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 20.11.2025 Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.11.21 17:13:15 +0530 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1200/24 Page 17 of 17