Delhi High Court Rules: “Disownment by Parents Through Public Notice Does Not Extinguish Legal Rights; Partition Suit Cannot Be Rejected at Preliminary Stage”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner (defendant) challenging the trial court’s dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The petitioner had sought rejection of a suit for partition and permanent injunction filed by the respondent (plaintiff). The court held that the issues of limitation and court fee are mixed questions of fact and law that require detailed evidence and cannot be summarily decided at the preliminary stage. The court also emphasized that a public notice of disownment does not divest legal rights unless supported by a valid legal instrument.

Facts of the Case

• The suit was filed for partition and permanent injunction of a property located in New Delhi and for funds lying in a bank account.
• The father of the parties, who originally owned the property, passed away in 2005, after which the property was mutated in the mother’s name.
• The respondent (plaintiff) claimed that the petitioner (defendant) had concealed key facts, including affidavits executed in favor of the mother that waived the petitioner’s rights in the property.
• The petitioner argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose upon the father’s death in 2005, yet the suit was filed in 2019.
• The petitioner also contended that the respondent was not in physical possession of the property and should have paid ad valorem court fee.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the suit for partition was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963?
2. Whether the requisite court fee had been paid by the respondent (plaintiff)?
3. Whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint, was justified?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Limitation Bar: The petitioner claimed that since the father died in 2005, the right to seek partition arose at that point. Under the Limitation Act, a suit for partition must be filed within three years from the cause of action. Therefore, the suit filed in 2019 was time-barred.
2. Court Fee Deficiency: The petitioner argued that the respondent was not in possession of the property since 2018. As per law, if a plaintiff is not in possession, they must pay ad valorem court fee based on the market value of their share in the property.
3. Disownment: The petitioner relied on a public notice allegedly issued by the father in 2001, disowning the respondent. The petitioner argued that this disownment deprived the respondent of any right in the property.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Suit Filed Within Limitation: The respondent countered that the cause of action arose when an oral demand for partition was made in March 2019, and the suit was filed promptly in May 2019—well within the three-year limitation period.
2. Constructive Possession: The respondent claimed that as a co-owner, he retained constructive possession of the property even if he was physically absent. This meant that the court fee paid was sufficient, as there was no ouster of his rights.
3. Public Notice Invalid: The respondent argued that the public notice of disownment lacked legal significance. Without a valid legal instrument (e.g., will, partition deed, or gift deed), the respondent’s legal rights could not be extinguished.

Analysis of the Law

1. On Limitation
   • The court clarified that the right to partition is a continuing right. The cause of action does not necessarily arise upon the death of a co-owner. Instead, it arises when one party demands partition and the other refuses.
   • Since the respondent made a demand for partition in March 2019 and filed the suit in May 2019, the suit was well within the three-year limitation period under Articles 69 and 110 of the Limitation Act.
2. On Court Fee
   • The court relied on the principle that a co-owner in constructive possession of a property is not required to pay ad valorem court fee.
   • It referred to the case of Uma Ghate vs. Umesh Phalpher, which held that a plaintiff who remains in constructive joint possession cannot be compelled to pay ad valorem court fee.
3. On Disownment
   • The court held that mere disownment through a public notice does not legally exclude a person from inheritance rights.
   • The court relied on the precedent set in Preeti Satija vs. Raj Kumar, where it was observed that a public proclamation does not have a dispositive legal effect unless accompanied by a valid instrument like a will or deed of partition.
   • The court also cited Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin & Ors., where it was held that possession of one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners unless proven otherwise.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Limitation: The respondent filed the suit within the statutory period after his demand for partition was refused. The suit was therefore not barred by limitation.
2. Court Fee: The respondent’s claim of constructive possession was plausible at this stage. Determining court fee required evidence and could not be decided summarily.
3. Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The court emphasized that issues of limitation and court fee are mixed questions of fact and law that need detailed examination during trial. These cannot be grounds for rejecting the plaint at the preliminary stage.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, holding that:

• The suit is not barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in March 2019.
• The court fee issue requires evidence and cannot be summarily decided.
• Public notices of disownment have no legal effect on inheritance rights unless supported by valid legal instruments.

The court remarked that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC appeared to be a delaying tactic and upheld the trial court’s decision to proceed with the suit.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Inheritance Rights: The judgment reaffirms that disownment through public notices does not extinguish legal rights without proper legal instruments.
2. Constructive Possession: Co-owners retain their rights even if they are not physically residing on the property, as long as they are not formally ousted.
3. Rejection of Suits: Courts will not summarily reject suits under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where issues of limitation and court fee require detailed evidence.

Also Read – Supreme Court: Temporary Appointments Made Without Regular Recruitment Process Do Not Confer Right to Reinstatement; Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Premature Termination and Discriminatory Treatment