The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application seeking the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), reaffirming the settled legal principle that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that the interpretation of a Will and the nature of the suit property involve complicated questions of law and fact which cannot be determined at the preliminary stage of checking for a cause of action.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs, Kanak Trakru and Anmol Trakru, filed a suit seeking partition and a declaration of their interest in the suit property based on a registered Will dated March 1, 2017, executed by their grandparents, Avtar Krishen Trakru and Raj Dulari Trakru. The plaintiffs are the children of Defendant No. 2 (Lalit Trakru).
The plaintiffs claimed rights as beneficiaries under the Will. In the alternative, they prayed that if the Will is held invalid, the property should be partitioned as coparcenary or ancestral property belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), in which they claimed a 1/12th share each.
Defendant No. 1 filed an application (I.A. 23815/2025) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, primarily arguing that the suit failed to disclose a cause of action.
Contentions of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant (Defendant No. 1) argued that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to plead details regarding the existence of an HUF. It was contended that as grandchildren, the plaintiffs could not seek partition during the lifetime of their father (Defendant No. 2).
Furthermore, the applicant argued that the Will dated March 1, 2017, was a “joint Will.” It was submitted that upon the death of Avtar Krishen Trakru, the entire estate devolved upon Raj Dulari Trakru as her absolute self-acquired property, giving her the sole right to distribute it. The applicant relied on the text of the Will which stated that the surviving executant “shall be possessed of all our assets… as absolute owner.”
Per contra, the plaintiffs argued that their main prayer was based on the Will wherein they are named beneficiaries. They submitted that the claim regarding HUF was an alternative prayer. The counsel for the plaintiffs contended that under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, there cannot be a partial rejection of a plaint. Regarding the Will, they argued that it was intended to come into operation only after the demise of both testators.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Avneesh Jhingan rejected the contentions of the applicant, emphasizing that the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited to the averments in the plaint.
Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I (2004), the Court observed that “whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact” to be found from reading the plaint itself. The Court also cited Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia and Ors. (2025), stating:
“At this preliminary stage, the court is required to confine its examination strictly to the averments made in the plaint and not venture into the merits or veracity of the claims. If any triable issues arise from the pleadings, the suit cannot be summarily rejected.”
Partial Rejection of Plaint: The Court addressed the applicant’s challenge to the alternative prayer regarding HUF properties. The Bench noted that accepting the applicant’s argument would result in the partial rejection of the plaint, as the primary prayer based on the Will would still survive. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao v. Madan Mohan Rao (2023), the High Court held:
“It is a salutary position in law that there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint… Once a part of a plaint cannot proceed, the other part also cannot proceed, and the plaint as a whole must be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11.”
Interpretation of the Will: Regarding the applicant’s argument that the property became the self-acquired property of the grandmother after the grandfather’s death, the Court held that this would require a decision on “complicated questions of law and fact.” The Court noted:
“The effect of the joint Will as to whether the suit property became the self-acquired property of Smt. Raj Dulari Trakru after the death of Sh. Avtar Krishen Trakru would require a decision on complicated questions of law and fact and cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.”
The Court further noted that probate proceedings regarding the Will are pending, and it would be inappropriate to prejudge the validity of the Will in these proceedings.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the application, stating that the contentions raised by the applicant were “devoid of merit.” The Court concluded that the nature and intent of the Will could not be determined at this stage and that the plaint could not be rejected partially.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Kanak Trakru & Anr. v. Renu Trakru Singla & Ors.
- Case Number: CS(OS) 216/2025
- Coram: Justice Avneesh Jhingan
