Delhi High Court Dismisses Application for Rejection of Suit, Allowing Challenge to Will and Gift Deed While Emphasizing the Need for Full Adjudication and Proper Court Fees Payment

1. Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant’s application for rejection of the suit. The Court ruled that:

• The plaintiff had the right to challenge the gift deed and Will, and the case required full adjudication.
• The plaintiff had rectified the issue of underpayment of Court Fees and could proceed with the case.
• The suit was not liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which allows for rejection of a plaint when no cause of action is disclosed.
• However, the Court modified an earlier interim order, allowing the defendant to use or lease the suit property but restraining any sale or mortgage without informing the Court.

2. Facts of the Case

• The deceased was the original owner of the suit property and passed away at the age of 92.
• Upon his death, he left behind Class I legal heirs, which included his two sons (the plaintiff and the defendant) and three daughters.
• The defendant claimed ownership over the property based on two documents:
  • A registered Will dated 24th July 2017, which allegedly bequeathed the property to him.
  • A registered gift deed dated 6th September 2021, by which the deceased allegedly transferred the property to him.
• The plaintiff challenged both documents, asserting that they were invalid and that the property should be divided among all legal heirs.
• The defendant argued that the plaintiff had no valid claim, as the property had already been transferred to him legally.
• A previous suit for partition had already been filed by one of the sisters (defendant no.4), which was dismissed due to a lack of disclosure regarding the Will.

3. Issues Before the Court

The Court had to decide the following key legal questions:

1. Did the plaintiff have a valid cause of action to challenge the gift deed and Will?
2. Was the suit undervalued, and had the plaintiff paid the required Court Fees?
3. Should the suit be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lacking a cause of action?
4. Was the suit maintainable without the plaintiff seeking consequential relief for possession under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

4. Petitioner’s (Plaintiff’s) Arguments

The plaintiff put forth the following arguments:

1. The gift deed and Will were invalid, and the deceased had intended for the property to be divided among all legal heirs.
2. Since the plaintiff was a Class I legal heir, he had the right to challenge the documents.
3. Consequential relief (such as possession) could be added later and was not a requirement at the initial stage.
4. The plaintiff had now paid the ad valorem Court Fees, correcting any prior deficiencies.
5. The Will and gift deed were executed under suspicious circumstances, making them invalid.

5. Respondent’s (Defendant’s) Arguments

The defendant countered with the following claims:

1. The deceased had validly executed the Will and gift deed in favor of the defendant.
2. The plaintiff lacked any cause of action, as the property had already been transferred legally.
3. The plaintiff was not in physical possession of the property and had admitted this fact.
4. The plaintiff had intentionally undervalued the suit to avoid paying the correct Court Fees.
5. Since a partition suit had already been filed earlier by another legal heir (defendant no.4), this suit was an attempt to relitigate the same issue.

6. Analysis of the Law

The Court analyzed the legal presumptions attached to registered documents and examined the grounds for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It noted that:

1. Order VII Rule 11 CPC allows for rejection of a suit if no cause of action is disclosed or if the suit is otherwise barred by law.
2. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that a suit for declaration is not maintainable if the plaintiff fails to seek further relief (such as possession) when they are in a position to do so.
3. Since the plaintiff had filed an amendment application to include consequential relief, the suit could not be dismissed at this stage.

7. Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on several key Supreme Court rulings:

1. Surhid Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors (2010) – Established that a plaintiff challenging a sale deed must pay ad valorem Court Fees.
2. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) – Clarified that suits must be dismissed if they lack a cause of action.
3. Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers & Builders (2022) – Held that the question of consequential relief should be considered at the final stage of adjudication.
4. Akkamma v. Vemavathi (2021) – Established that a plaintiff can seek an amendment to include consequential relief if it is within the limitation period.

8. Court’s Reasoning

The Court arrived at its decision based on the following findings:

1. The plaintiff was not in actual possession of the property, which he had conceded in previous hearings.
2. The plaintiff had paid the required Court Fees, correcting any prior deficiencies.
3. The plaintiff’s amendment application seeking consequential relief had been filed, and the Court needed to adjudicate whether it was within the limitation period.
4. The previous suit for partition had been dismissed, but the present case involved different issues, specifically the validity of the Will and gift deed.

9. Conclusion

The Court ruled that:

• The plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as it disclosed a valid cause of action.
• The plaintiff’s right to challenge the Will and gift deed must be adjudicated through a full trial.
• The defendant was allowed to use or lease the property but could not sell or mortgage it without notifying the Court.
• The amendment application seeking consequential relief must be decided on its own merits.

10. Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has several important legal implications:

1. Threshold for Rejection of Suits: The ruling reinforces that courts will not reject suits prematurely under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless there is a clear lack of cause of action.
2. Necessity of Seeking Consequential Relief: Plaintiffs challenging registered documents must ensure that all necessary reliefs are included in their plaints to avoid dismissal under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
3. Protection of Registered Documents: The judgment upholds the principle that registered Wills and gift deeds carry a strong presumption of validity, and challengers bear the burden of proving their invalidity.
4. Amendments to the Plaint: The decision clarifies that a plaintiff can seek amendments to add consequential relief provided it is done within the limitation period.

Also Read – Kerala High Court’s Examination of Factual Determinations in Competitive Evaluations: Limits of High Court Intervention Under Article 226 in Cases Involving Academic and Performance-Based Disputes