TARUN SINGH SAHARAN vs MEETA SINGH & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 18th February 2025 Pronounced on: 4th April 2025 + I.A. 5371/2024 in CS(OS) 252/2022 TARUN SINGH SAHARAN .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. versus MEETA SINGH & ORS.. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Luqman S. Hasan, Mr. Shubham Awasthi, Mr. Harsh Raj, Ms. Priya Kaur, Advocates for D- 1 & 2. Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate for D-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J. I.A. 5371/2024 (Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC) 1. This application has been filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 & 2 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’) as being devoid of any cause of action. 2. The background facts of the matter are that plaintiff filed a suit for partition of all the properties of late Sh. Gurbachan Singh Saharan (‘deceased’). Plaintiff is the son; defendant no.1 is the widow and defendant no.2 is the daughter of the deceased. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR I.A. 5371/2024 in CS(OS) 252/2022 Page 1 of 23 Signing Date:08.04.2025 17:38:48 3. The plaintiff claimed that he was looking after the entire family, including the time when his father was unwell, however, he passed away on 19th April 2021, leaving behind the above noted legal heirs. During his lifetime, the deceased acquired various immovable and movable properties which he left behind after his demise. The deceased also acquired various movable and immovable assets in the name of a HUF i.e. “Gurbachan Singh HUF” in which deceased, plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 & 2 were members and deceased was the Karta. 4. It is stated by plaintiff that he had undergone a liver transplant to benefit his father, and it was the wish of his father, that since he had saved his