Dismissed¶50

Sunita Bansal and Anr. v. Rajan Bansal

Delhi HC27 Nov 2025FAO(OS)/149/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court FAO(OS) 149/2025 (27.11.2025): refusal to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC upheld; res judicata plea requires specific pleading and evidence, Respondent/devisee under registered Will dated 20.07.2018 not party to earlier civil suit No.109/86/2004 (dismissed 16.12.2006); Section 14(1) HSA widow's maintenance-to-ownership objection deferred to evidence stage; Gulwant Kaur (1987) 3 SCC 674 and Jasbir Kumar (RFA 607/2016) distinguished; Suit Property 5F, Vishwa Apartments, 3, Shankarcharya Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi; mesne profit/damages/user charges; appeal and CM APPL. 74248-74251/2025 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The plea of res judicata must be specifically pleaded and substantiated with evidence; it cannot ground rejection of the plaint at the threshold. ¶39

Sunita Bansal and Anr. Vs Rajan Bansal — Succession and Inheritance | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondent's suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata in view of the earlier civil suit No.109/86/2004 (filed by late Sh. PDB, dismissed on 16.12.2006), so that the plaint should be rejected under Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The plea of res judicata must be specifically pleaded and substantiated with evidence; it cannot ground rejection of the plaint at the threshold.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie the suit is not barred by res judicata because the Respondent was not a party to the earlier suit (civil suit No.109/86/2004); after the death of PDB, ownership of the property vests in the Respondent under the registered Will.

¶39

Key takeaways

Rejection of the plaint on the ground of res judicata should be adjudicated only after the parties are allowed to lead evidence.ratio¶40
The Plaintiff's admission that Appellant No.1 is in possession, and the Appellants' challenge to the correctness of the Will, are issues to be resolved only after the parties are allowed to lead evidence.ratio¶45
The Appellants' objection concerning their rights under Section 14(1) of the HSA can only be examined after the parties are permitted to lead evidence on the matter.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, FAO(OS) 149/2025 (decided 27.11.2025; Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.) — Appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 06.08.2025 dismissing the Appellants' (Defendants') application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection at the threshold of the Respondent's suit (eviction, permanent and mandatory injunction, mesne profit/damages) founded on a registered Will dated 20.07.2018 of late Sh. Parshottam Dass Bansal (died 25.02.2020). Held, dismissing the appeal with all pending applications: (i) a plea of res judicata must be specifically pleaded and substantiated with evidence; prima facie the suit is not barred since the Respondent was not a party to the earlier civil suit No.109/86/2004 (dismissed 16.12.2006) and ownership vests in him under the registered Will; such rejection is to be adjudicated only after evidence; (ii) the Appellants' objection based on Section 14(1) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (maintenance rights ripening into ownership) is examinable only after evidence; (iii) at the Order VII Rule 11 stage the plaint is tested solely on its own averments; (iv) Gulwant Kaur (1987) 3 SCC 674 is not rendered in the Order VII Rule 11 context, and Jasbir Kumar (RFA 607/2016, judgment dated 06.02.2017) turns on peculiar facts — neither establishes that plaints of suits against widows must be rejected.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 27.11.2025

¶4

- FAO(OS) 149/2025, CM APPL. 74248/2025, CM APPL. 74249/2025, CM APPL. 74250/2025 and CM APPL. 74251/2025

¶5

SUNITA BANSAL AND ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Mr. Amar Jain, Mr. Amritesh Mishra, Ms. Sarah and Ms. Shehreen, Advs. with Appellant No.1/Sunita Bansal in person

¶6

versus

¶7

RAJAN BANSAL .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶12

Through this Appeal, the Appellants assail the correctness of the order dated 06.08.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] by the Appellants (Defendants before the learned Single Judge), seeking rejection of the plaint at the threshold, was dismissed.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 9.11.2025 17:15:34

¶15

FAO (OS) 149/2025 Page 1 of 5

¶16

Late Sh. Parshottam Dass Bansal [hereinafter referred to as “late Sh. PDB”] was owner of the property bearing No. 5F, Vishwa Apartments, 3, Shankarcharya Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 [hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”]. PDB was initially married to late Smt. Savitri Devi [hereinafter referred to as “Savitri”] and out of the said wedlock, the Respondent/Sh. Rajan Bansal was born. Unfortunately, Smt. Savitri passed away. Thereafter, PDB remarried Appellant No.1/Smt. Sunita and out of the said wedlock, Appellant No.2/Sh. Ateet Bansal was born. PDB remained the owner of the Suit Property until his demise on 25.02.2020. By a Will dated 20.07.2018, which was registered on 23.07.2018, he bequeathed the Suit Property in favor of the Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent filed a civil suit seeking eviction, permanent and mandatory injunction as well as recovery of mesne profit/damages/monthly user charges.

¶17

The Appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC contending that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata , as late PDB had previously filed a civil suit No.109/86/2004, which was dismissed on 16.12.2006. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, refused to reject the plaint.

¶18

Learned counsel representing the Appellants has made the following two primary submissions:-

¶19

i. Res Judicata: The Appellants contend that the suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, in light of the judgment passed on

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 9.11.2025 17:15:34

¶22

FAO (OS) 149/2025 Page 2 of 5

¶23

16.12.2006 in civil suit No.109/86/2004 filed by the late Sh. P.D. Bansal against the Defendant No.1.

¶24

ii. Claim of Maintenance : The Appellant further submit that the rights of Appellant No.1 to claim maintenance have ripened into absolute ownership of the property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as “HSA”].

¶25

In view of the aforementioned submissions, learned counsel representing the Appellants relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Gulwant Kaur and Anr. v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.¹ and the judgment dated 06.02.2017 passed by this Court in RFA 607/2016 captioned Jasbir Kumar v. Kanchan Kaur & Ors .

¶26

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the Appellants and with his able assistance, perused the paperbook.

¶27

Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC reads as under:-

¶28

“ 11. Rejection of plaint. — The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:—

¶29

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

¶30

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶31

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

¶32

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

¶33

[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]

¶34

1 (1987) 3 SCC 674

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 9.11.2025 FAO (OS) 149/2025 Page 3 of 5 17:15:34

¶37

[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:]”

¶38

Learned counsel representing the Appellants attempts to bring his case under Clause (d) of the Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which provides for the rejection of the plaint if the suit, on the face of it, appears to be barred by law.

¶39

In this regard, the plea of res judicata must be specifically pleaded and substantiated with evidence. Moreover, at this stage, this Court finds that prima facie, the suit is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata , in view of the fact that the Respondent was not a party to the earlier suit i.e. civil suit No. 109/86/2004) and at that time, Appellant No.1 had the right of residence in her husband’s house. After the death of PDB, the ownership of the property, as per the Will, vests in the Respondent, who claims ownership based on the registered Will.

¶40

It is further alleged in the plaint that the Appellants did not permit PDB to reside in the Suit Property, and PDB had to lead nomadic life after being turned out of the house. In these circumstances, the rejection of the plaint on the grounds of res judicata should be adjudicated only after the parties are allowed to lead evidence.

¶41

It is also noted that the learned counsel representing the Appellants submits that the Plaintiff admits that Appellant No.1, is in possession and the Appellants’ challenge to the correctness of the Will

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 9.11.2025 17:15:34

¶44

FAO (OS) 149/2025 Page 4 of 5

¶45

must also be considered. However, this is an issue to be resolved after the parties are allowed to lead evidence.

¶46

With regard to the second submission, it is noted that the objection raised by the Appellants concerning their rights under Section 14(1) of the HSA can only be examined after the parties, are permitted to lead evidence on the matter.

¶47

At this stage, the Court is required to decide the application for rejection of the plaint solely on the basis of averments made therein. As per Clause (d) of the Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the plaint can be rejected based on the averments made in the plaint itself.

¶48

The judgment in Gulwant Kaur ( supra ) is not delivered in the context of the Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the judgment in Jasbir Kumar ( supra ) is based on the peculiar facts of that case, which do not establish a broad legal principle that the Plaints of all suits filed against widows must be rejected.

¶49

In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the Impugned Order.

¶50

Accordingly, the present Appeal, along with all the pending applications, is dismissed.

¶51

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶52

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. NOVEMBER 27, 2025 /sp/rgk

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:2 9.11.2025 17:15:34

¶55

FAO (OS) 149/2025 Page 5 of 5

Sunita Bansal and Anr. v. Rajan Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Bansal and Anr. v. Rajan Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Aggarwal Vs Richa Gupta

Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs Devender Yadav and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Anr. Anr. Vs M/S Shakuntla Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Manmohan Singh Ahuja Vs Mahinder Singh Ahuja

Poonam Gill Vs Mrs Nirdosh Gill & Ors.

Kapoor Tent & Caterers Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation

Himanshu Goyal & Anr. Vs Dhruv Goyal & Ors.

Bhulurani Majumdar Vs Shipra Chakraborty & Ors.

Ravi Rajpurohit Vs Rekha Purohit

Ghanshyambhai B. Patel Vs Adjudicating Authority & Anr.

Gaurav Aggarwal Vs Richa Gupta

Pawan Kumar Sidhu Vs Smt Purnima

Sunil Madan Mandhan Vs the Sate Gnct of Delhi & Anr.

Sanjay Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.