The Delhi High Court has set aside an order rejecting a plaint filed by a deceased daughter (represented by legal heirs) seeking her share in ancestral property, ruling that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer title and cannot extinguish the rights of other heirs. The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar restored the suit, holding that the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (DLR Act) versus the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) after the urbanization of land involves mixed questions of law and fact that cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, Indu Rani alias Indu Rathi, challenging the order dated December 1, 2022, passed by the Learned Single Judge. The dispute pertains to ancestral land measuring 41 bighas and 9 biswas in village Iradat Nagar, Naya Bans, Delhi.
The plaintiff’s father, Ram Gopal, died intestate on March 7, 1993, followed by her mother in 2010. The plaintiff claimed that after her father’s death, she, along with her mother and two brothers, became lawful co-owners entitled to a one-third share each. However, she alleged that her brothers clandestinely mutated the suit land in their names on June 29, 1994, and subsequently sold portions of it to the defendants between 1995 and 2007 without her consent.
The plaintiff contended that the land was urbanized by a government notification dated September 7, 2006, and thus ceased to be governed by the DLR Act. She filed the suit in 2020 seeking a declaration of the sale deeds as null and void and claiming her share.
The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, arguing that under Section 50 of the DLR Act, female legal heirs are excluded from inheriting Bhumidhari rights. They asserted that succession crystallized in 1993 upon the father’s death, devolving exclusively upon the male descendants. The Single Judge allowed this application, holding that the rule of succession under the DLR Act prevailed and that the plaintiff had failed to plead the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants argued that the Single Judge erred in dismissing the suit without a trial. They contended that since the land was urbanized in 2006, the DLR Act’s restrictions on female succession were no longer applicable, and the Hindu Succession Act (as amended in 2005) governed the rights. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, they argued that the plaintiff had acquired rights as a coparcener.
Conversely, the respondents (defendants) argued that the succession opened in 1993 when Section 50 of the DLR Act was in force, excluding daughters. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India, asserting that the 2005 amendment to the HSA could not unsettle the rights that had already devolved upon the sons. They further argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that the mutation had attained finality.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench observed that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited to the averments made in the plaint. The Court clarified that “succession never remains in abeyance for even a split second” and that the mutation in favor of the sons in 1994 “neither creates title nor extinguishes rights of other heirs.”
Addressing the key issue of the DLR Act’s applicability, the Court distinguished the present case from Har Naraini Devi, noting that the plaintiff here specifically pleaded that the land was urbanized in 2006. The Bench observed:
“It becomes doubtful that the said Act [DLR Act] will apply after the property had been urbanised… The 1994 mutation, carried out in the revenue regime under the pre-urbanisation framework, cannot govern the succession or rights in the property post-urbanisation.”
The Court criticized the Single Judge’s reliance on the lack of detailed pleadings regarding the HUF, stating:
“The explanation as to how the property is ancestral would fall within the domain of evidence… The Plaintiff asserts that the property descended from ancestors, devolved jointly and remained unpartitioned. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the LSJ that there was no pleading on coparcenary is wholly unsustainable.”
Regarding the retrospective application of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court referred to Vineeta Sharma, noting that the amendment confers the status of a coparcener on a daughter by birth. The Court held:
“Once the Plaintiff’s prima facie status as a coparcener is recognised, the unilateral alienations by the brothers cannot bind her share absent proof of legal necessity.”
The Bench further held that objections regarding limitation and the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC required a factual inquiry and could not be decided without a trial.
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated December 1, 2022. The suit was restored to its original number, and the parties were directed to appear before the Roster Bench on January 13, 2026.
The Court concluded:
“The rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is wholly unsustainable, as the Plaintiff has clearly disclosed a substantive and triable cause of action… The plaint therefore, raises bona fide issues warranting a full trial, and none of these matters can be determined without permitting the parties to lead their evidence.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Indu Rani alias Indu Rathi (Deceased) Through LRs v. Pushpa Varat Mann and Ors.
Case Number: RFA(OS) 3/2023
Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
