Dismissed

Harveen Singh Chadha @ Lovely & Anr. v. Balveen Singh Chadha @ Ricky

Delhi HC2 Sept 2024FAO(OS)/118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the dismissal of an application seeking rejection of a suit for partition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The single judge initially refused to examine the limitation bar or disputed ownership, restricting itself to the plaint. The High Court held that partition is a continuing cause of action, negating the limitation plea, and correctly confined the lower court to plaint averm

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the appeal and pending applications.

Harveen Singh Chadha @ Lovely & Anr. Vs Balveen Singh Chadha @ Ricky — Partition | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~52

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 118/2024 & C.M.Nos.50406-50407/2024

¶4

HARVEEN SINGH CHADHA @ LOVELY & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr.Abhishek Kamal and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

BALVEEN SINGH CHADHA @ RICKY .....Respondent Through: Mr.L.S.Solanki, Advocate.

¶7

% Date of Decision: 02^nd September, 2024

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶12

Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15^th May, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 2728/2024 in CS(OS) 712/2023, whereby the application filed by the Appellants (Defendant Nos.1 & 2 therein) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking rejection of plaint was dismissed on the ground that the Respondent herein (Plaintiff therein) has averred that he has an equal right in the subject property and that the learned Single Judge, at this stage in the Suit, cannot go into the disputed questions of fact or law to invoke jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11, CPC and must limit itself to the averments made in the plaint. The subject suit has been filed by the Respondent herein seeking partition of the subject properties.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

FAO(OS) 118/2024

¶15

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.09.2024 18:53:45

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Learned counsel for the Appellants states that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the subject suit is barred by limitation as the subject property was purchased by the Appellants on 21^st November, 2005 and the suit was filed after a lapse of seventeen years on 6^th November, 2023.

¶18

He further states that the learned Single judge while dismissing the Respondent’s application bearing I.A. No. 22013/2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, CPC has himself stated that there is no prima facie case in favor of the Respondent (Plaintiff therein) owing to the registered sale deed dated 21^st September, 2005. Consequently, according to him, no legal right accrues in favor of the Respondent with regard to the subject property and the subject suit is bereft of any cause of action and must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

¶19

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Single Judge has only stated that no prima facie case was made out by the Respondent with regard to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC owing to the presumption of genuineness of the registered sale deed dated 21^st September, 2005. However, it is important to bear in mind that the said presumption is a rebuttable one.

¶20

Further, the ownership of the subject properties is a disputed question of fact and the learned Single Judge has correctly held that at this stage in the subject suit, the Court must limit itself only to the averments made in the plaint to decide an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

¶21

It is also settled law that partition is a continuing cause of action. Consequently, at this stage, it cannot be said that the subject suit is barred by limitation.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

FAO(OS) 118/2024

¶24

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.09.2024 18:53:45

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Accordingly, the present appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed along with the pending applications.

¶27

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶29

SEPTEMBER 02, 2024 KA

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

FAO(OS) 118/2024

¶32

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.09.2024 18:53:45

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Harveen Singh Chadha @ Lovely & Anr. v. Balveen Singh Chadha @ Ricky

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harveen Singh Chadha @ Lovely & Anr. v. Balveen Singh Chadha @ Ricky

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shefali Varma Vs Meenakshi Varma & Ors.

Kohli One Housing and Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.S. Agarwal & Ors.

Amrit Deep Singh Vs Sidharth Singh

Operation Asha a Registered Society through Its President Mr Rakesh K Khurana Vs Dr Shelly Batra & Ors.

Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs Neeraj Kainth & Ors.

Ms Utpala Mukherjee Vs Aeromarine Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Smt. Harpyari (Deceased ) through Lr. Vs Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society

Rajneesh Rampal Vs Shanker Lal Arora @ Shankar Arora & Anr.

Mamta Khodtiya Vs Union of India & Ors.

Northern Railway Book Stall Workers Vendors Cooperative Sale and Supply Ltd. Railway Station Ludhia Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sushma Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Ravindra Nath Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Shailesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Bakshish Singh Chandhok and Ors. Vs Bhavjot Singh Chandhok