Delhi High Court Rejects Son’s Partition Claim Over Shahdara Property, Holds Property Bequeathed by Grandmother to Father Was Not Ancestral After Hindu Succession Act
Facts
The appellant, Pawan Kumar, filed a suit for partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No. 4/1515, Gali No. 13, Dalhai Mohalla, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, East Delhi. He claimed that the property belonged to his mother, Smt. Janak Rani, who died intestate on 23 August 2017, and therefore he was entitled to a share in the property along with his father and brother.
The defendants contested the claim and stated that the property was originally purchased by the parties’ grandfather, Shri Ganda Mal, in 1966. After his death, his widow Smt. Ram Pyari and two sons, Krishan Lal and Inderjeet, inherited it. The two sons executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of Smt. Ram Pyari on 25 April 1994, after which she executed a registered Will in favour of her son Inderjeet.
Inderjeet later executed a Will in favour of his wife Janak Rani, but she died during his lifetime, and the Will in her favour was revoked. Inderjeet thereafter executed a registered Will in favour of his other son, Rajender Kumar. The Trial Court rejected Pawan Kumar’s suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for failure to disclose cause of action.
Issues
Whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action for partition and possession.
Whether the suit property could be treated as ancestral property in the hands of Inderjeet merely because it originally belonged to his father, Ganda Mal.
Whether non-probate of the Will executed by Smt. Ram Pyari affected its validity in Delhi.
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the Trial Court wrongly rejected the plaint by considering the defendants’ written statement and documents. According to him, only the plaint averments could be examined at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
He contended that the property was ancestral because it originally belonged to his grandfather, Ganda Mal, and had passed through the family line. Therefore, even if it came to Inderjeet through the Will of Smt. Ram Pyari, its ancestral character was not lost.
He also argued that the Will executed by Smt. Ram Pyari in favour of Inderjeet had not been probated, and therefore could not defeat his claim of inheritance and partition.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued that the property was not ancestral. After Ganda Mal’s death, his sons relinquished their shares in favour of their mother, Smt. Ram Pyari, who became the absolute owner.
It was submitted that once Smt. Ram Pyari became absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she had full right to deal with the property, including by executing a Will in favour of Inderjeet.
The respondent further argued that probate of a Will is not mandatory in Delhi. Therefore, the Will could not be ignored merely because probate had not been obtained.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that there is no mandatory requirement in Delhi to obtain probate of a Will before acting upon it. Therefore, the appellant could not derive any advantage merely from the fact that the Will of Smt. Ram Pyari had not been probated.
The Court further held that once Krishan Lal and Inderjeet relinquished their shares in favour of Smt. Ram Pyari, she became the absolute owner of the property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The property thereafter became her independent property, and she was free to bequeath it as she wished.
The bequest by Smt. Ram Pyari in favour of Inderjeet could not be treated as ancestral property in his hands merely because the property originally belonged to his father.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav, where the Supreme Court held that probate requirements are geographically limited and do not apply to regions like Delhi.
The Court also relied on Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, where the Supreme Court clarified that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance from a paternal ancestor does not automatically create Hindu Undivided Family property.
The Court also referred to Harish Chander Gupta v. Rakesh Gupta, holding that after 1956, property inherited from parental ancestors is ordinarily treated as self-acquired property unless there is pleading and proof of blending, throwing into common hotchpotch, or some other legally recognised creation of HUF property.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that even on the admitted facts, the appellant’s case was legally unsustainable. The property originally belonged to Ganda Mal, but after his death, it came to his widow and sons. The sons then relinquished their shares in favour of Smt. Ram Pyari, making her absolute owner.
Since Smt. Ram Pyari had absolute ownership, the Will executed by her in favour of Inderjeet conveyed the property as her individual property. Such bequest could not make the property ancestral in Inderjeet’s hands.
The Court further noted that the appellant had not challenged the authenticity of the Will executed by Smt. Ram Pyari. He had also not properly challenged the later registered Will executed by Inderjeet in favour of Rajender Kumar, except by making a vague allegation that it may have been procured.
Therefore, the plaint failed to disclose any enforceable right to partition or possession.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. It held that the appellant failed to disclose any cause of action for partition, possession or injunction because the property was not ancestral and no share accrued to him merely by lineage.
Case: Pawan Kumar v. Rajender Kumar
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: RFA 344/2024
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 3 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; rejection of partition suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC upheld.
